From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: grant.likely@secretlab.ca (Grant Likely) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:40:30 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v3 1/2] arm/mx5: add device tree support for imx53 boards In-Reply-To: <20110802060936.GA9972@freescale.com> References: <1312226252-8566-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <1312226252-8566-2-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <20110802060936.GA9972@freescale.com> Message-ID: <20110802134030.GA20071@ponder.secretlab.ca> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 02:09:37PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 11:01:39PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Shawn Guo wrote: > > However, today when we were talking you asked if it would be better to > > use a callback into board-specific code instead of the iomux table > > that is implemented in this patch. I was fine either way, but my > > opinion was that the table would probably result in less code. Well, > > combined with the above problem, I think I was wrong. Since the only > > difference in the ard variant is the call to > > imx53_ard_weim_cs_config(), both the cs config and the iomux setup > > will be simpler if both are handled in a callback. You're original > > instinct was correct. > > > > Ok, here you go. Yes, I think this is the right approach. Go ahead and spin it into a real patch series and repost. Acked-by: Grant Likely g.