From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCHv11 2/8] ARM: OMAP2+: hwmod: Add API to check IO PAD wakeup status Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:28:04 -0800 Message-ID: <20111213222804.GV32251@atomide.com> References: <1323713733-13115-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <1323713733-13115-3-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:38578 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752736Ab1LMW2M (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:28:12 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Walmsley Cc: "R, Govindraj" , Tero Kristo , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org * Paul Walmsley [111213 13:44]: > Hi >=20 > a question >=20 > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Tero Kristo wrote: >=20 > So the patch description says: >=20 > > From: R, Govindraj > >=20 > > Add API to determine IO-PAD wakeup event status for a given > > hwmod dynamic_mux pad. >=20 > But the code does: >=20 > > + for (i =3D 0; i < hmux->nr_pads; i++) { > > + struct omap_device_pad *pad =3D &hmux->pads[i]; >=20 > which is going to check all of the pads, not just the dynamic ones. >=20 > So it seems to me that we need to decide whether this code should be=20 > testing all the pads, or just the dynamically remuxed ones. The same= =20 > thing should be decided for the code in patch 1. >=20 > Na=C3=AFvely it seems to me that we want to test all of the pads in b= oth=20 > patches 1 and 2, not just the dynamically remuxable ones. Comments? You're right, it should be only the dynamic ones. Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html