Hi Lina,
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Ohad,
>
> Any comments?
Sorry, I was under the impression the discussion with Bjorn is still open.
Like Bjorn, I'm not so sure too we want to bind a specific lock to the
RAW capability since this is not a lock-specific hardware detail.
As far as I can see, the hardware-specific differences (if any) are at
the vendor level and not at the lock level, therefore it might make
more sense to add the caps member to hwspinlock_device rather than to
the hwspinlock struct (Jeffrey commented about this too).
Thanks,
Ohad.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Ohad,
>
> Any comments?
Sorry, I was under the impression the discussion with Bjorn is still open.
Like Bjorn, I'm not so sure too we want to bind a specific lock to the
RAW capability since this is not a lock-specific hardware detail.
As far as I can see, the hardware-specific differences (if any) are at
the vendor level and not at the lock level, therefore it might make
more sense to add the caps member to hwspinlock_device rather than to
the hwspinlock struct (Jeffrey commented about this too).
Thanks,
Ohad.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/