On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
[..]
> Since the existence of several hwblocks is still fictional (Bjorn,
> please confirm too?), we may prefer to introduce changes to support it
> only when it shows up; it all depends on the amount of changes needed.
> Suman, care to take
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 03:58:42AM +, Suman Anna wrote:
>> On 01/22/2015 12:56 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
[..]
>> > That's the only way I would expect this to possibly remain a stable
>> > over time, and it's the entire reason for
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 03:58:42AM +, Suman Anna wrote:
On 01/22/2015 12:56 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
[..]
That's the only way I would expect this to possibly remain a stable
over time, and it's the entire reason for
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
[..]
Since the existence of several hwblocks is still fictional (Bjorn,
please confirm too?), we may prefer to introduce changes to support it
only when it shows up; it all depends on the amount of changes needed.
Suman,
Hi,
Sorry I've been away from this thread for a while.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:29:37AM +, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> >> Yep, will do as soon as I hear from Ohad on what to do with the patch
> >> "hwspinlock/core: maintain a list of
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 03:58:42AM +, Suman Anna wrote:
> On 01/22/2015 12:56 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:56:37PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
> >> On 01/21/2015 06:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> How about
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> Yep, will do as soon as I hear from Ohad on what to do with the patch
>> "hwspinlock/core: maintain a list of registered hwspinlock banks" that I
>> dropped from v7. Without that and dropping hwlock-base-id, I can't get
>> the translations
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Bjorn Andersson bj...@kryo.se wrote:
Yep, will do as soon as I hear from Ohad on what to do with the patch
hwspinlock/core: maintain a list of registered hwspinlock banks that I
dropped from v7. Without that and dropping hwlock-base-id, I can't get
the
Hi,
Sorry I've been away from this thread for a while.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:29:37AM +, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Bjorn Andersson bj...@kryo.se wrote:
Yep, will do as soon as I hear from Ohad on what to do with the patch
hwspinlock/core: maintain a list
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 03:58:42AM +, Suman Anna wrote:
On 01/22/2015 12:56 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:56:37PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
On 01/21/2015 06:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com wrote:
How
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> On 02/05/2015 05:01 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
[..]
>> Will you send out a new revision of the binding? I would love to get
>> this integrated so I can move on with the dependents.
>
> Yep, will do as soon as I hear from Ohad on
Hi Bjorn,
On 02/05/2015 05:01 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
>> On 02/01/2015 11:55 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> In a
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
> On 02/01/2015 11:55 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
In a system where you have two hwlock blocks lckA and lckB, each
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Suman Anna s-a...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/01/2015 11:55 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson bj...@kryo.se wrote:
In a system where you have two hwlock
Hi Bjorn,
On 02/05/2015 05:01 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Suman Anna s-a...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/01/2015 11:55 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Suman Anna s-a...@ti.com wrote:
Hi Bjorn,
On 02/05/2015 05:01 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
[..]
Will you send out a new revision of the binding? I would love to get
this integrated so I can move on with the dependents.
Yep, will do as soon as I hear from Ohad
On 02/01/2015 05:00 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> In a system where you have two hwlock blocks lckA and lckB, each
>>> consisting of 8 locks and you have dspB that can only access
On 02/01/2015 11:55 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> In a system where you have two hwlock blocks lckA and lckB, each
>>> consisting of 8 locks and you have dspB that can only access
On 02/01/2015 11:55 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson bj...@kryo.se wrote:
In a system where you have two hwlock blocks lckA and lckB, each
consisting of 8 locks and you have dspB
On 02/01/2015 05:00 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson bj...@kryo.se wrote:
In a system where you have two hwlock blocks lckA and lckB, each
consisting of 8 locks and you have dspB
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> In a system where you have two hwlock blocks lckA and lckB, each
>> consisting of 8 locks and you have dspB that can only access lckB
>
> This is a good example - thanks. To be
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > In a system where you have two hwlock blocks lckA and lckB, each
> > consisting of 8 locks and you have dspB that can only access lckB
>
> This is a good example - thanks. To be
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson bj...@kryo.se wrote:
In a system where you have two hwlock blocks lckA and lckB, each
consisting of 8 locks and you have dspB that can only access lckB
This is a good
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson bj...@kryo.se wrote:
In a system where you have two hwlock blocks lckA and lckB, each
consisting of 8 locks and you have dspB that can only access lckB
This is a good
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> In a system where you have two hwlock blocks lckA and lckB, each
> consisting of 8 locks and you have dspB that can only access lckB
This is a good example - thanks. To be able to cope with such cases we
will have to pass a hwlock block
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> The hwlock is a basic hardware primitive that allow synchronization
>>> between different processors in the system, which may be running Linux
>>> as well as other
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
Mark,
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
The hwlock is a basic hardware primitive that allow synchronization
between different processors in the system, which may be running Linux
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson bj...@kryo.se wrote:
In a system where you have two hwlock blocks lckA and lckB, each
consisting of 8 locks and you have dspB that can only access lckB
This is a good example - thanks. To be able to cope with such cases we
will have to pass a
On 01/22/2015 12:56 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:56:37PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
>> On 01/21/2015 06:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
How about default to Linux id space and allow overriding that with
a
On 01/22/2015 12:56 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:56:37PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
On 01/21/2015 06:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com wrote:
How about default to Linux id space and allow overriding that with
a
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:56:37PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
> On 01/21/2015 06:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >> How about default to Linux id space and allow overriding that with
> >> a module param option if needed?
> >
> > I'm not sure
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:56:37PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
On 01/21/2015 06:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com wrote:
How about default to Linux id space and allow overriding that with
a module param option if needed?
I'm not
On 01/21/2015 06:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> How about default to Linux id space and allow overriding that with
>> a module param option if needed?
>
> I'm not sure I'm following.
>
> If the main point of contention is the base_id
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> How about default to Linux id space and allow overriding that with
> a module param option if needed?
I'm not sure I'm following.
If the main point of contention is the base_id field, I'm also fine
with removing it entirely, as I'm not
On 01/21/2015 06:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com wrote:
How about default to Linux id space and allow overriding that with
a module param option if needed?
I'm not sure I'm following.
If the main point of contention is the
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com wrote:
How about default to Linux id space and allow overriding that with
a module param option if needed?
I'm not sure I'm following.
If the main point of contention is the base_id field, I'm also fine
with removing it entirely,
* Ohad Ben-Cohen [150116 16:50]:
> Mark,
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> The hwlock is a basic hardware primitive that allow synchronization
> >> between different processors in the system, which may be running Linux
> >> as well as other operating systems, and
* Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com [150116 16:50]:
Mark,
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
The hwlock is a basic hardware primitive that allow synchronization
between different processors in the system, which may be running Linux
as well as other
Mark,
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> The hwlock is a basic hardware primitive that allow synchronization
>> between different processors in the system, which may be running Linux
>> as well as other operating systems, and may have no other means of
>> communication.
>>
On 01/16/2015 04:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 02:42:23PM +, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:52:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 02:42:23PM +, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:52:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
> >> > This patch adds the generic common bindings
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 06:09:00AM +, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:52:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman
On 01/16/2015 04:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 02:42:23PM +, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:52:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman Anna
Mark,
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
The hwlock is a basic hardware primitive that allow synchronization
between different processors in the system, which may be running Linux
as well as other operating systems, and may have no other means of
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 06:09:00AM +, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Rob Herring robherri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:52:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14,
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 02:42:23PM +, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:52:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
This patch adds the generic
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:52:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
>>> > +- hwlock-base-id: An unique base Id for the locks
On 01/15/2015 08:42 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:52:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
This patch adds the generic common bindings used to represent
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:52:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
>> > This patch adds the generic common bindings used to represent
>> > a hwlock device and use/request locks in a
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:52:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
> > This patch adds the generic common bindings used to represent
> > a hwlock device and use/request locks in a device-tree build.
> >
> > All the platform-specific hwlock
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
> This patch adds the generic common bindings used to represent
> a hwlock device and use/request locks in a device-tree build.
>
> All the platform-specific hwlock driver implementations need the
> number of locks and associated base id
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:52:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
This patch adds the generic common bindings used to represent
a hwlock device and use/request
On 01/15/2015 08:42 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:52:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
This patch adds the generic common bindings used to
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Rob Herring robherri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:52:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
+- hwlock-base-id: An
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:52:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
This patch adds the generic common bindings used to represent
a hwlock device and use/request locks in a device-tree build.
All the platform-specific hwlock driver
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 08:58:18PM +, Suman Anna wrote:
This patch adds the generic common bindings used to represent
a hwlock device and use/request locks in a device-tree build.
All the platform-specific hwlock driver implementations need the
number of locks and associated base id for
56 matches
Mail list logo
