From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:28:04 -0800
Subject: [PATCHv11 2/8] ARM: OMAP2+: hwmod: Add API to check IO PAD
 wakeup status
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1112131505000.12046@utopia.booyaka.com>
References: <1323713733-13115-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com>
 <1323713733-13115-3-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1112131505000.12046@utopia.booyaka.com>
Message-ID: <20111213222804.GV32251@atomide.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

* Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com> [111213 13:44]:
> Hi
> 
> a question
> 
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Tero Kristo wrote:
> 
> So the patch description says:
> 
> > From: R, Govindraj <govindraj.raja@ti.com>
> > 
> > Add API to determine IO-PAD wakeup event status for a given
> > hwmod dynamic_mux pad.
> 
> But the code does:
> 
> > +	for (i = 0; i < hmux->nr_pads; i++) {
> > +		struct omap_device_pad *pad = &hmux->pads[i];
> 
> which is going to check all of the pads, not just the dynamic ones.
> 
> So it seems to me that we need to decide whether this code should be 
> testing all the pads, or just the dynamically remuxed ones.  The same 
> thing should be decided for the code in patch 1.
> 
> Na?vely it seems to me that we want to test all of the pads in both 
> patches 1 and 2, not just the dynamically remuxable ones.  Comments?

You're right, it should be only the dynamic ones.

Tony