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 14:48:51 -0800 Message-ID: <20111213224851.GX32251@atomide.com> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.66]:61612 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751593Ab1LMWsz (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:48:55 -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 14:06]: > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote: >=20 > > * Paul Walmsley [111213 13:44]: > > >=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 one= s. > > >=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 both=20 > > > patches 1 and 2, not just the dynamically remuxable ones. Commen= ts? > >=20 > > You're right, it should be only the dynamic ones. >=20 > Hmm, looks to me like it should check all of them? Can't a pad be ma= rked=20 > with OMAP_DEVICE_PAD_WAKEUP, but not be marked with OMAP_DEVICE_PAD_R= EMUX? =20 > 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 -- 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