[PATCH 2/7] OMAP2+: mux: Enable wakeup for wakeup enable requested pads

[Govindraj]

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Varadarajan, Charulatha <charu at ti.com> wrote:
> Govind,
>
> Couple of minor comments.
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 20:09, Govindraj.R <govindraj.raja at ti.com> wrote:
>> For device pads which have OMAP_DEVICE_PAD_WAKEUP set (which means they
>> are wakeup capable) enable the IO-daisy wakeup capability.
>> During re-muxing avoid direct write with val as this can disturb if any
>> mux done at bootloader level so read the pad then write back.
>>
>> Also add a api to fetch the wake-up status bit is set for given omap-hwmod
>
> %s/a api/an API/
>
>> device using available mux info which is added during omap_hwmod_mux_init.
>> Wakeup status bit is needed for uart_resume_idle call from sram_idle path
>> based on wake-up event has occurred for given uart we can enable clocks back.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak at ti.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Govindraj.R <govindraj.raja at ti.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c                    |   23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.h                    |   13 +++++++++++++
>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c             |   13 +++++++++++++
>>  arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/omap_hwmod.h |    1 +
>>  4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c
>> index 98148b6..5338b93 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c
>> @@ -317,6 +317,24 @@ err1:
>>        return NULL;
>>  }
>>
>> +/* Gets the wakeup status of given pad from omap-hwmod */
>> +int omap_hwmod_mux_wakeup(struct omap_hwmod_mux_info *hmux)
>> +{
>> +       int i;
>> +       unsigned int val = -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +       for (i = 0; i < hmux->nr_pads; i++) {
>> +               struct omap_device_pad *pad = &hmux->pads[i];
>> +
>> +               val = omap_mux_read(pad->partition, pad->mux->reg_offset);
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       if (val > 0 && val & OMAP_WAKEUP_EVENT)
>> +               return 1;
>> +       else
>
> No need of else here.

Yes correct.

I am resending this patch with some more modifications
to fix one more issue in the above loop.

--
Thanks,
Govindraj.R



<<SNIP>>