Since we're using non-atomic radix tree allocations, we
should be protecting the tree using a mutex and not a
spinlock.

Non-atomic allocations and process context locking is good enough,
as the tree is manipulated only when locks are registered/
unregistered/requested/freed.

The locks themselves are still protected by spinlocks of course,
and mutexes are not involved in the locking/unlocking paths.

Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NJuan Gutierrez <jgutierrez@ti.com>
[ohad@wizery.com: rewrite the commit log, #include mutex.h, add minor
commentary]
[ohad@wizery.com: update register/unregister parts in hwspinlock.txt]
Signed-off-by: NOhad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>

Use struct device_driver's owner member instead of asking drivers to
explicitly pass the owner again.

This simplifies drivers and also save some memory, since there's no
point now in maintaining a separate owner pointer per hwspinlock.
Signed-off-by: NOhad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>

Add a platform-independent hwspinlock framework.

Hardware spinlock devices are needed, e.g., in order to access data
that is shared between remote processors, that otherwise have no
alternative mechanism to accomplish synchronization and mutual exclusion
operations.
Signed-off-by: NOhad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>
Cc: Hari Kanigeri <h-kanigeri2@ti.com>
Cc: Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@ti.com>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>
Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Acked-by: NArnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: NTony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>