From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S938812AbXGSTYn (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:24:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965874AbXGSTXd (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:23:33 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.232]:42913 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965916AbXGSTXb (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:23:31 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=pA0thgUouXqQ4lBy+vZ335Ju10Zo03bu48WtkGsa0l/X2x53HbiWBqcnggVIXkAkGIIjKMidaLNS5Au+Osvx4fSNK/McvmtRUr7k2gT61FzQgmhgtnxwQOROl+veMZS381TC3+We986tymY2WHtSthFm0ZavxX9nhdwmP5Bbj68= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:23:30 -0400 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" To: "Andi Kleen" Subject: Re: [PATCH for review] [12/48] x86_64: use the global PIT lock Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200707191929.40016.ak@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070719348.540885000@suse.de> <20070719134841.5677614E6E@wotan.suse.de> <200707191929.40016.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thursday 19 July 2007 17:22:38 Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > Hi Andi, > > > > On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > From: Thomas Gleixner > > > > > > 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 that pcspkr binds to so the arch code would control > > wehther we use a private spinlock or a global one (I sent a patch to > > that effect earlier). > > Not sure that flexibility is needed. Why would an architecture ever want > to have more than one lock for this? And we normally don't need sysdevs > for locks, they seem to be quite unrelated. > 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 CONFIG_X86...) from the pcspkr driver. -- Dmitry