On 7/20/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(i8253_lock);
> +
> static __init int add_pcspkr(void)
> {
> struct platform_device *pd;
> @@ -1501,9 +1503,14 @@ static __init int add_pcspkr(void)
> if (!pd)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> +pd->dev.platform_data = _lock;
That
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(i8253_lock);
> +
> static __init int add_pcspkr(void)
> {
> struct platform_device *pd;
> @@ -1501,9 +1503,14 @@ static __init int add_pcspkr(void)
> if (!pd)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> + pd->dev.platform_data = _lock;
That seems
On 7/20/07, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(i8253_lock);
+
static __init int add_pcspkr(void)
{
struct platform_device *pd;
@@ -1501,9 +1503,14 @@ static __init int add_pcspkr(void)
if (!pd)
return -ENOMEM;
+pd-dev.platform_data = i8253_lock;
That seems
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(i8253_lock);
+
static __init int add_pcspkr(void)
{
struct platform_device *pd;
@@ -1501,9 +1503,14 @@ static __init int add_pcspkr(void)
if (!pd)
return -ENOMEM;
+ pd-dev.platform_data = i8253_lock;
That seems pretty
On Thursday 19 July 2007 15:52, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> >
> > I was not talking about sysdevs. I was talking about platform devices
> > that are already being created for pcspkr by arch code. Now I want
> > arch code to provide a spinlock for pcspkr driver to use when
> > accessing PIT. What it
>
> I was not talking about sysdevs. I was talking about platform devices
> that are already being created for pcspkr by arch code. Now I want
> arch code to provide a spinlock for pcspkr driver to use when
> accessing PIT. What it does it allows to remove arch specific
> knowledge (i.e. #ifdef
On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 19 July 2007 17:22:38 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Andi,
>
> On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Replace the pcspkr private PIT lock by the global PIT lock to
On Thursday 19 July 2007 17:22:38 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Andi,
>
> On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Replace the pcspkr private PIT lock by the global PIT lock to serialize the
> > PIT access all over the place.
> >
>
Hi Andi,
On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Replace the pcspkr private PIT lock by the global PIT lock to serialize the
PIT access all over the place.
Like I said before I'd be more happy if spinlock was attached to a
platform device
From: Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Replace the pcspkr private PIT lock by the global PIT lock to serialize the
PIT access all over the place.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Dmitry
From: Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Replace the pcspkr private PIT lock by the global PIT lock to serialize the
PIT access all over the place.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov
Hi Andi,
On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Replace the pcspkr private PIT lock by the global PIT lock to serialize the
PIT access all over the place.
Like I said before I'd be more happy if spinlock was attached to a
platform device
On Thursday 19 July 2007 17:22:38 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
Hi Andi,
On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Replace the pcspkr private PIT lock by the global PIT lock to serialize the
PIT access all over the place.
Like I said before
On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 19 July 2007 17:22:38 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
Hi Andi,
On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Replace the pcspkr private PIT lock by the global PIT lock to serialize the
PIT
I was not talking about sysdevs. I was talking about platform devices
that are already being created for pcspkr by arch code. Now I want
arch code to provide a spinlock for pcspkr driver to use when
accessing PIT. What it does it allows to remove arch specific
knowledge (i.e. #ifdef
On Thursday 19 July 2007 15:52, Andi Kleen wrote:
I was not talking about sysdevs. I was talking about platform devices
that are already being created for pcspkr by arch code. Now I want
arch code to provide a spinlock for pcspkr driver to use when
accessing PIT. What it does it
16 matches
Mail list logo