From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:48:51 -0800 Subject: [PATCHv11 2/8] ARM: OMAP2+: hwmod: Add API to check IO PAD wakeup status In-Reply-To: References: <1323713733-13115-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <1323713733-13115-3-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <20111213222804.GV32251@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20111213224851.GX32251@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Paul Walmsley [111213 14:06]: > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > * Paul Walmsley [111213 13:44]: > > > > > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Tero Kristo wrote: > > > > > > So the patch description says: > > > > > > > From: R, Govindraj > > > > > > > > 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. > > Hmm, looks to me like it should check all of them? Can't a pad be marked > with OMAP_DEVICE_PAD_WAKEUP, but not be marked with OMAP_DEVICE_PAD_REMUX? > In that case it would not end up on the dynamic list, right? Hmm yes that's even more true :) Maybe the right approach would be to copy the OMAP_DEVICE_PAD_WAKEUP pins also to the dynamic list to avoid going through all of them. Tony