On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
Hi Suman,
[..]
Does this mean you allow nodes not to have the base_id property? How
do we protect against multiple nodes not having a base_id property
then?
Implicitly assuming a base_id value (zero in this case) may
Hi Bjorn,
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Bjorn Andersson bj...@kryo.se wrote:
I still have a huge problem understanding the awesomeness with the
base_id. If you have a SoC with 2 hwlock blocks; say 8+8 locks, used
for interaction with e.g. a modem and a video core respectively.
Why would
Hi Suman,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Suman Anna s-a...@ti.com wrote:
None of the OMAPs have multiple IP instances, and as such the base-id is
an optional property. I have made this change to make sure we atleast
attempt to use the value if mentioned in DT and not hard-coding the
value
Hi Suman,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Suman Anna s-a...@ti.com wrote:
static int omap_hwspinlock_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
- struct hwspinlock_pdata *pdata = pdev-dev.platform_data;
+ struct device_node *node = pdev-dev.of_node;
struct
Hi Ohad,
On 11/12/2014 01:14 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
Hi Suman,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Suman Anna s-a...@ti.com wrote:
static int omap_hwspinlock_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
- struct hwspinlock_pdata *pdata = pdev-dev.platform_data;
+ struct device_node
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
[t...@atomide.com:
