[PATCH] mxc: Fix pad names for imx51

[jason77.wang@gmail.com (jason)]

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?

Thanks,
Jason.