Hi,
   Acked-by: Steve zhan zhanzhenbo at gmail.com

   "I'd rather not test the spinlocks after they are registering as they
might already be in use by then."

    Why? I think user must use it after hwspin_lock_register have retured
sucess.


Steve


2012/12/30 Ido Yariv [off-list ref]

Hi Steve,

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 05:19:08PM +0800, steve.zhan wrote:

quoted

Hi,

    It is good idea add this feature.

1: Can we let the "ret = hwspin_lock_tests(ops, hwlock);" add after
hwspin_lock_register_single have return
succeed, that can avoid test duplicated Or error lockid. Of course, If
this interface is intend to test soc hardware capability only, we can
put it in the arch module not this core framework. For driver hardware
sanity check, i would add it after software have register it.

I'd rather not test the spinlocks after they are registering as they
might already be in use by then.

While this feature only verifies the underlying platform implementation,
I think it's best to avoid code duplication and keep it in one place
that will always get called.

quoted

2:Is it possible that interface add configs that choose which locks
will be test? Because the hwspinlock module is init late in
postcore_initcall phase, Maybe MACH/ARCH code(for example: code in
early_initcall) need use private other interfaces to lock some
hwspinlocks and then register hw locks to hwspinlock framework, Maybe
some hw locks is in lock status but which test failed.

It was assumed that up to the point where the hw spinlocks are
registered they will not be used, regardless of when this module is
initialized.
If this assumption does not hold for your platform, the simplest
solution would be to set this config option to 'N', as there is no safe
way of verifying spinlocks that are actively being used.

Thanks for reviewing this,
Ido.

-- 
Steve Zhan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20121230/375b953e/attachment-0001.html>