[PATCH] ARM: imx: Add some core definitions for MX53

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

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:22:53AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:09:21AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 09:29:59AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx53.h |  301 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/mx53.h       |  433 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 
> > > Hi Dinh.
> > > 
> > > In general, these definitions should not be added until they are
> > > actually needed by driver code.
> > ack.
> > 
> > > Also, from my understanding, the mx53 is very similar to the mx51.
> > > If I'm correct, then they should be sharing the same set of #defines.
> > Note, I asked for a seperate header file.  See
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1051001/focus=1051352
> 
> For the record, I disagree with that approach.  The approach I would
> take is for the imx53 code to use the imx51 defines by default, and to
> only define imx53 variants where there are differences.  Otherwise the
> code to support imx53 has to be completely divergent from imx51
> because the defines are different symbols.

That's a way we can go but only if the common name is not MX5 or MX5x.
We've done it with the mx21/27 and it failed when the mx25 came out
which was completely incompatible. Since then everybody looking at
the code must know that mx2x is mx21/27 but not mx25. I suggest
something like MX513 instead.

On the other hand I think there won't be much divergency. The way
devices are registered won't produce much overhead in sourcecode
and none in binary size.

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 |