[U-Boot] [PATCH RFC 0/22] i.MX6: Update pad declarations for multiple-arch binaries

[Eric Nelson <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com>]

Hi Stefano,

On 09/01/2013 10:08 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
> Hi Otavio,
>
> On 31/08/2013 23:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Eric Nelson
>> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>>> The primary reason this patch set is sent as an RFC is the overall
>>> feeling that there must be a better way and the fact that none of
>>> these pads is actually used by any current code in U-Boot and the
>>> vast majority of these changes will never do so (OBSERVABILITY
>>> pads, for instance).
>>
>> I think it is better to have all the pads there so we don't need to
>> always recheck if the pad is known or not and make changes on this all
>> the time.
>>
>
> I am not sure I have understood your sentence: what do you mean with
> "there" ? Are you suggesting another place for the pads ?
>

Note that not all of the defined pad options are currently present
in these headers, including some that are being used by some down-stream 
boards:
	https://github.com/boundarydevices/u-boot-imx6/commit/b9a39fd1756ab95554f4c49b9cf1cde73a9dbda9

I'm taking a look at the XML files distributed as a part of the
IOMux tool to see if they can be used to produce a more complete set.

>> This will also help in the work of TechNexion guys with the SPL; so I
>> am all in favor of these changes.
>
> Agree. A full cleanup is necessary before trying to push the changes we
> have already discussed.
>
> I tend also to prepare a new branch on u-boot-imx, where I will play the
> current status for the imx6 - these changes will not flow into 2013.10,
> and maybe having a branch to test will help.
>
I think a single patch or patch set to clean things up will save effort
in the long term instead of handling things on a pin-by-pin basis as
new boards are designed.

Regards,


Eric