From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:43:02 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] arm: imx: share imx5x_register_gpios for mach-mx5 In-Reply-To: <20101125081406.GG4693@pengutronix.de> References: <1290695312-30031-1-git-send-email-linuxzsc@gmail.com> <20101125062924.GD4693@pengutronix.de> <20101125074244.GE4693@pengutronix.de> <20101125081406.GG4693@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20101125084302.GN6017@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 : > > > 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 |