[PATCHv6 5/5] hwspinlock/omap: add support for dt nodes
From: Bjorn Andersson <hidden>
Date: 2014-11-20 00:43:50
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-omap, lkml
From: Bjorn Andersson <hidden>
Date: 2014-11-20 00:43:50
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-omap, lkml
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen [off-list ref] 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 not be always safe.
Hi Ohad, 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 you in either remote system offset the locks with 8? Wouldn't e.g the modem use locks hwlock0:0-7 and video core use locks hwlock1:0-7? What systems use more than one hwlock block and do you know of any reasons why these hwlocks are globally numbered? Regards, Bjorn