[PATCH 1/1] arm: imx: share imx5x_register_gpios for mach-mx5

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

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 09:14:06AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 04:01:04PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > 2010/11/25 Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>:
> > > Hey Richard,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 02:44:48PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > >> > IMO the machine files shouldn't need to know how many gpio banks are
> > >> > available. ?This is a per-SoC thing and so should be set in a SoC function.
> > >> But we don't have SoC level device file.
> > > Check how I did it for imx{1,21,27,25} in arch/arm/plat-mxc/gpio.c.
> > I considered put it there too. but we can not add new defconfig, and
> > even can not create new items in Kconfig. So we can not use ifdefs.
> Why not add new Kconfig symbols?  Up to now I was unfettered by scruples
> adding new ones.
> 
> > And per my understanding, mx5x is going to use one zImage, correct?
> It should be possible to have a single image for more than one SoC, yes.
> 
> > >> > How do you want to continue this change? ?mx51 and mx53 have the same
> > >> > number of ports? ?Does mx50 have more or less? ?The addresses are the
> > >> > same?
> > >> mx53 and mx50 have similar memory map. but mx51 is different. ?Sorry,
> > >> I forgot upstream version IO_ADDR can not handler differnt SoC base
> > >> addr offset.
> > > It might even work in this case, still I prefer a more explicit way.
> > >
> > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ?It can not be shared with mx51, but it can be shared with
> > >> mx50/53, correct? May plan is mx53/50 share
> > >> arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/mx5x.h file.
> > > mx5x.h is for mx50 and mx53 but not mx51? ?No please.
> > For memory map, mx51 is a special case. From mx53 on , IC tuned memory
> > map to support large memory.
> > If we use things like mx53-50.h, symbols is hard to define.
> > MX53_50_XXX_XXX is wired. Any possibly, we need to add new SoC with
> > similar memory map in the future.
> I still think defining symbols for a single SoC is fine most of the
> time.

+1

MX2X was confusing when the i.MX25 came out and we won't start *any*
MX5X things when we already know that it's wrong. Go with MX51_ MX53_
MX50_ or whatever the SoC of the day is. Putting things together to
share the code is done in the upper layers, *not* the register defines.

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 |