* Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> [130718 00:57]: > * Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [130717 14:28]: > > > > Oh, I see you're trying to check that the set of pins in the active, > > sleep, and idle states are identical. > > Right, that's to avoid any further checking during runtime for runtime PM. > > > But I think that pinctrl_check_dynamic() only checks that one state is a > > subset of the other, not that the two states are equal. Instead, I think > > you want to comparison coded in pinctrl_check_dynamic() to be: > > In pinctrl_check_dynamic() we check that the pins match between the > states, and the number of found pins matches the first set. I'll > take a look if we check the total pins between the two sets. That that is a bit painful right now to check properly as we don't have any sorting, and we could use that elsewhere too for checks probably.. > > gen_group_list_of_pinctrl_state(s1, array1); > > gen_group_list_of_pinctrl_state(s2, array2); > > mismatch = memcmp(array1, array2, length); > > Well we could allocate and sort the pins, but the number of pins > for runtime PM is typically very small for each pin consumer device. > Typically you just need to toggle RX pin to GPIO mode for idle. And > this check is only done during consumer driver probe time. So > optimizing it for larger sets could be done at any point later on > as needed. ..so for now, let's just check the total number of pins for the sets like Felipe suggested. I think we're better off improving the pinctrl data first to make various checks easier. What you're suggesting with the mepcmp() can be done easily if we add something like device_get_pins() and have the pins sorted for the various states for a device at the device probe time. Regards, 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
