[U-Boot] [U-BOOT][PATCH 3/5] MX53: Add pin and multiplexer definitions.

[Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de>]

Jason Liu wrote:
> The patch add header files to support the pin multiplexer
> of the the Freescale i.MX53 processor.
> 
> Signed-off-by:Jason Liu <r64343@freescale.com>

Hi Jason,

> ---
>  arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx53/iomux.h     |  193 +++++++++++++++
>  arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx53/mx53_pins.h |  359 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 552 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx53/iomux.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx53/iomux.h

As I said for the previous patches, we must avoid to duplicate files.
This file must be merged with mx51 counterpart. As I see, the two files
have small differences.



> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx53/mx53_pins.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx53/mx53_pins.h
> new file mode 100644

Definitions for mx53 are different as for mx51, so probably it is not
possible to merge them in a single structure. But we can have a single
file (mx5_pins.h, maybe ?), using #ifdef to set the different pins.

> +enum iomux_pins {
> +	MX53_PIN_GPIO_19  	= _MXC_BUILD_GPIO_PIN(3, 5, 1, 0x20, 0x348),
> +	MX53_PIN_KEY_COL0 	= _MXC_BUILD_GPIO_PIN(3, 6, 1, 0x24, 0x34C),

I think the best way should be to get rid of the cpu related names, and
use a more general approach. For exammple, we have MX51_PIN_KEY_COL0
defined for the MX51. It should be better to have for example
MX5_PIN_KEY_COL0,  whose value is different if our target is a MX51 or MX53.

What do you think ?

Best regards,
Stefano Babic

-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80  Email: office at denx.de
=====================================================================