* Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> [111213 14:06]:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>
> > * Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> [111213 13:44]:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Tero Kristo wrote:
> > >
> > > So the patch description says:
> > >
> > > > From: R, Govindraj <govindraj.raja@xxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Naïvely 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
