On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday 19 July 2007 17:22:38 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Andi,
>
> On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> >
> > Replace the pcspkr private PIT lock by the global PIT lock to serialize the
> > PIT access all over the place.
> >
>
> Like I said before I'd be more happy if spinlock was attached to a
> platform device that pcspkr binds to so the arch code would control
> wehther we use a private spinlock or a global one (I sent a patch to
> that effect earlier).
Not sure that flexibility is needed. Why would an architecture ever want
to have more than one lock for this? And we normally don't need sysdevs
for locks, they seem to be quite unrelated.
I was not talking about sysdevs. I was talking about platform devices
that are already being created for pcspkr by arch code. Now I want
arch code to provide a spinlock for pcspkr driver to use when
accessing PIT. What it does it allows to remove arch specific
knowledge (i.e. #ifdef CONFIG_X86...) from the pcspkr driver.
--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
