From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932577Ab0JZLy7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:54:59 -0400
Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:39361 "EHLO
	mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756941Ab0JZLy6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:54:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Originating-IP: [93.172.23.49]
In-Reply-To: <20101025190221.GC7206@atomide.com>
References: <1287387875-14168-1-git-send-email-ohad@wizery.com>
 <1287387875-14168-4-git-send-email-ohad@wizery.com> <87r5fmxghm.fsf@deeprootsystems.com>
 <AANLkTinZ2+ocJCfUpT15Ow3J9XBa-8XWnVC3gDDJ7s-v@mail.gmail.com>
 <87bp6pviwf.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <AANLkTikE1dCXW-7ScVoDgEK3sxai_TyFzstSG+zvNm2F@mail.gmail.com>
 <8739s0sobc.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <AANLkTikdjtYtzhgM_=io3SFdUZq=8Xcc8n24bW=SFgTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20101022165612.GF9149@atomide.com> <AANLkTimysu4L+ecFvpGAQ0bj3fhLQC1cveWddFNNp=JQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20101025190221.GC7206@atomide.com>
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:54:37 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimkUDwAn-+gmNKMkXY0Uw8evt1_W2saeRKY-Xbd@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] omap: add hwspinlock device
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>, Balaji T K <balajitk@ti.com>,
        "Kamat, Nishant" <nskamat@ti.com>, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
        Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@ti.com>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
        Hari Kanigeri <h-kanigeri2@ti.com>, Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
>> if you feel that (2) is justifiable/desirable, I would be more
>> than happy to submit that version.
>
> Yes (2) please. I would assume there will be more use of this. And then
> we (or probably me again!) don't have to deal with cleaning up the drivers
> again in the future.

Sounds good.

>> Or do you mean a variation of (2) with only the specific locking bits
>> coming from pdata func pointers ? I guess that in this case we just
>> might as well go with the full (2).
>
> Yes variation of (2) where you only pass the locking function via
> platform data would be best.

It feels a bit funky to me because we would still have code that is
omap-specific inside the "common" probe()/remove() calls.

I suggest to move everything that is omap-specific to a small omap
module that, once probed, would register itself with the common
hwspinlock framework (after initializing its hardware).

That small platfom-specific module probably doesn't have to sit in the
arch/ folder; we can follow established conventions like
mmc/i2c/gpio/spi/etc..

With that in hand, the hwspinlock would really be hardware-agnostic,
and then applying s/omap_hwspin/hwspin/ would be justified.

Does this sound reasonable to you ?

Thanks,
Ohad.