[PATCH] mxc: Fix pad names for imx51

[s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer)]

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 09:04:50PM +0800, jason wrote:
> Sascha Hauer wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 03:09:04PM +0200, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>   
>>> On 10 Jun 08, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>>>     
>>>> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 02:15:47PM -0700, Troy Kisky wrote:
>>>>       
>>>>> Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>>>>         
>>>>>> On 10 Jun 07, Troy Kisky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>> On 10 Jun 04, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>> +#define MX51_PAD_CSPI1_SCLK__GPIO_4_27		IOMUX_PAD(0x614, 0x224,  3, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_2__GPIO_1_2		IOMUX_PAD(0x7D4, 0x3CC, 0, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
>>>>>>>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_3__GPIO_1_3		IOMUX_PAD(0x7D8, 0x3D0, 0, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
>>>>>>>> +#define MX51_PAD_PMIC_INT_REQ__PMIC_INT_REQ	IOMUX_PAD(0x7FC, 0x3D4, 0, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
>>>>>>>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_4__GPIO_1_4		IOMUX_PAD(0x804, 0x3D8, 0, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
>>>>>>>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_5__GPIO_1_5		IOMUX_PAD(0x808, 0x3DC, 0, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
>>>>>>>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_6__GPIO_1_6		IOMUX_PAD(0x80C, 0x3E0, 0, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
>>>>>>>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_7__GPIO_1_7		IOMUX_PAD(0x810, 0x3E4, 0, 0x0,   0, MX51_GPIO_PAD_CTRL)
>>>>>>>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_8__GPIO_1_8		IOMUX_PAD(0x814, 0x3E8, 0, 0x0,   1, MX51_GPIO_PAD_CTRL)
>>>>>>>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_9__GPIO_1_9		IOMUX_PAD(0x818, 0x3EC, 0, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>> Why all the stuttering?
>>>>>>> Isn't MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_9 or MX51_PAD_DISP2_DAT15 descriptive enough?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             
>>>>>> Just following the convention use in the rest of imx devices. See the
>>>>>> following comment at the top of the file:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>  * The naming convention for the pad modes is MX51_PAD_<padname>__<padmode>
>>>>>>  * If <padname> or <padmode> refers to a GPIO, it is named
>>>>>>  * GPIO_<unit>_<num> see also iomux-v3.h
>>>>>>  */
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We could use the short names for pads being used in their "native mode".
>>>>>> But as soon as we use the pad in a different mode, such as
>>>>>> PAD_CSPI1_SCLK__GPIO_4_27 above, we'd need a different naming convention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Amit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           
>>>>> I'm fine with MX51_PAD_CSPI1_SCLK__GPIO_4_27, but I don't care for
>>>>> MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_9__GPIO_1_9. How about changing the comment to
>>>>>
>>>>>  /*
>>>>>   * The naming convention for the pad modes is MX51_PAD_<padname>
>>>>>   * or MX51_PAD_<padname>__<padmode> if padname != padmode.
>>>>>   * If <padname> or <padmode> refers to a GPIO, it is named
>>>>>   * GPIO_<unit>_<num> see also iomux-v3.h
>>>>>   */
>>>>>         
>>>> If anything then MX51_PAD_GPIO_<unit>_<num>. I chose to use the long
>>>> name to get a consistent naming and to express the fact that the pad has
>>>> a name and the mode has a name which can but don't has to be the same.
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> So will you take a modified patch to reflect this new naming convention?
>>>     
>>
>> Unless there are strong opinions for short names I'd like to keep the
>> old naming scheme as it is also used for other i.MX SoCs.
>>
>> Sascha
>>
>>
>>   
> From the discussion, it seems that Amit's patch for iomux-mx51.h is the  
> best choice,
> So i will rebase my patches off that. Is it acceptable?

Yes, ok.

Sascha


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |