[U-Boot] [PATCH V2 0/5] i.MX6 (DQ/DLS): consolidate mux and pad names

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

Hi Fabio,

On 11/13/2013 10:30 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Eric Nelson
> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>
>>> Applied (whole patchset) to u-boot-imx, thanks !
>>>
>>
>> Oops.
>>
>> I was kinda hoping to get a head-not from Fabio on the
>> macro-fication of mx6[q|dl]_pins.h.
>>
>> If we can get that, we can drop patch 5 of this patch set,
>> since the white-space changes all around...
>
> I am not sure I understood the issue with patch 5.
>

In the RFC e-mail change regarding README.imx6-something,
I proposed that we replace the pad declaration form
currently in use:

enum {
	MX6_PAD_SD3_DAT2__USDHC3_DAT2 = IOMUX_PAD(...)
};

with macros of this form so that they can be pre-pended
with MX6Q_ and MX6DL_ when we need both in an image
(SPL?) that can run on either variant of processor.

	MX6_PAD_DECL(SD3_DAT2__USDHC3_DAT2, ...)

If we do this, then lining up the columns based on the
first form doesn't make much sense.

Section 3 of this post is the easiest place to see things:
	http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-November/166678.html

This post has my list of oustanding questions:

	http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-November/166876.html

And we're addressing #1 and 2:
	1. Whether to turn declarations in mx6q_pins.h/mx6dl_pins.h
	into macros
	2. Whether to double-include the same in mx6-pins.h
	3. Whether to define baseline pads (the 90% case) in a header
	and double-include it, and
	4. Whether to macro-fy the memory layout files like
	1066mhz_4x128mx16.cfg so they can be used by imximage and gcc.

Regards,


Eric