On Sep 3, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
> Kumar,
>
> On 09/03/2013 01:50 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
>>
>>> HwSpinlock IP is present only on OMAP4 and other newer SoCs,
>>> which are all device-tree boot only. This patch adds the
>>> base support for parsing the DT nodes, and removes the code
>>> dealing with the traditional platform device instantiation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-a...@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> .../devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt | 28 ++++++++++
>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile | 3 --
>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/hwspinlock.c | 60
>>> ----------------------
>>> drivers/hwspinlock/omap_hwspinlock.c | 21 ++++++--
>>> 4 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
>>> create mode 100644
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt
>>> delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/hwspinlock.c
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..adfb8ad
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
>>> +OMAP4+ HwSpinlock Driver
>>> +
>>> +Required properties:
>>> +- compatible: Currently supports only "ti,omap4-hwspinlock"
>>> for
>>> + OMAP44xx, OMAP54xx, AM33xx, AM43xx, DRA7xx SoCs
>>> +- reg: Contains the hwspinlock register address range
>>> (base
>>> + address and length)
>>> +- ti,hwmods: Name of the hwmod associated with the
>>> hwspinlock device
>>> +
>>> +Optional properties:
>>> +- base_id: Base Id for the locks for a particular hwspinlock
>>> + device. If not mentioned, a default value of 0 is used.
>>> + This property is mandatory ONLY if a SoC has several
>>> + hwspinlock devices. There are currently no such OMAP
>>> + SoCs.
>>
>> Should this be ti,base_id ? [ I know its kinda generic in its intent for any
>> SoC w/multiple blocks ]
>
> I didn't add the "ti," prefix exactly for the same reason - it is
> generic w.r.t the hwspinlock core irrespective of the SoC family, and
> there is nothing ti or OMAP specific about it. I have added it to keep
> the DT node definition in sync with the driver code. If it is too
> generic a name, it can always be renamed as hwlock_base_id. This will be
> SoC agnostic property for the hwspinlock driver. What do you think?
I'm wondering if we should use cell-index for this purpose.
- k
>
> regards
> Suman
>
>>
>>> +
>>> + See documentation on struct hwspinlock_pdata in
>>> + linux/hwspinlock.h for more details.
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +Example:
>>> +
>>> +/* OMAP4 */
>>> +hwspinlock: spinlock@4a0f6000 {
>>> + compatible = "ti,omap4-hwspinlock";
>>> + reg = <0x4a0f6000 0x1000>;
>>> + ti,hwmods = "spinlock";
>>> +};
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>> - k
>>
>
--
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by
The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
