OMAP4 introduces a Hardware Spinlock device, which provides hardware
assistance for synchronization and mutual exclusion between heterogeneous
processors and those not operating under a single, shared operating system
(e.g. OMAP4 has dual Cortex-A9, dual Cortex-M3 and a C64x+ DSP).
The intention o
On 12/03/2010 03:50 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
OMAP4 introduces a Hardware Spinlock device, which provides hardware
assistance for synchronization and mutual exclusion between heterogeneous
processors and those not operating under a single, shared operating system
(e.g. OMAP4 has dual Cortex-A9, d
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:29 AM, David Daney wrote:
> Does anything other than OMAP4 have one of these things?
I'm not aware of any, but David Brownell had some ideas about it in
our previous v2 discussion (see
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@vger.kernel.org/msg39413.html).
Btw, you might
Hi Greg, Tony,
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> OMAP4 introduces a Hardware Spinlock device, which provides hardware
> assistance for synchronization and mutual exclusion between heterogeneous
> processors and those not operating under a single, shared operating system
> (e
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 04:31:36PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> Hi Greg, Tony,
>
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> > OMAP4 introduces a Hardware Spinlock device, which provides hardware
> > assistance for synchronization and mutual exclusion between heterogeneous
> > pro
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> Can you please have a look and say if this looks OK ?
>
> Look at what, I don't see a patch here.
Here's the complete patchset:
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@vger.kernel.org/msg39833.html
If you prefer, I can resubmit.
>
> I've seen a
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> Like the most important one, why is this generic code if
>> it's only for one specific platform?
>
> We started out with an omap-specific driver, but Tony preferred that we
> make this a
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:40:28PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >> Can you please have a look and say if this looks OK ?
> >
> > Look at what, I don't see a patch here.
>
> Here's the complete patchset:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-oma
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > I've seen a lot of discussion about this, are all of the review comments
>> > now addressed?
>>
>> Yes, all comments were addressed in this v3 iteration, and this thread
>> has been idle for about 10 days.
>
> That's because we are all busy wit
* Ohad Ben-Cohen [101216 13:34]:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >> > I've seen a lot of discussion about this, are all of the review comments
> >> > now addressed?
> >>
> >> Yes, all comments were addressed in this v3 iteration, and this thread
> >> has been idle for about 1
Hi Andrew,
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Ohad Ben-Cohen [101216 13:34]:
>> Tony, Andrew, can you please have a look ?
>>
>> Any comment or suggestion is appreciated.
>
> Looks sane to me from omap point of view and it seems the locks
> are now all timeout based:
>
> A
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 14:23:20 +0200
Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Ohad Ben-Cohen [101216 13:34]:
> >> Tony, Andrew, can you please have a look ?
> >>
> >> Any comment or suggestion is appreciated.
> >
> > Looks sane to me from
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
>> > Acked-by: Tony Lindgren
>>
>> Can you please have a look at this patch set (see link no. [1] below) ?
>
> I looked - it looks reasonable. This is exactly the wrong time to be
> looking at large new patchsets - please refresh, retest and
13 matches
Mail list logo
