Re: [PATCHv6 5/5] hwspinlock/omap: add support for dt nodes

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/