From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nikita Kiryanov Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:41:52 +0300 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 09/11] IMX: add additional function for pinmux using an array In-Reply-To: References: <1396504871-1454-1-git-send-email-tharvey@gateworks.com> <1396504871-1454-10-git-send-email-tharvey@gateworks.com> <53455F99.6080504@compulab.co.il> Message-ID: <5346ADB0.40405@compulab.co.il> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 04/09/2014 06:40 PM, Tim Harvey wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Nikita Kiryanov wrote: >> Hi Tim, >> >> >> On 04/03/2014 09:01 AM, Tim Harvey wrote: >>> >>> Add new function that can take an array of iomux configs, an index, and >>> a stride to allow a multi-dimentional array of pinmux values to be used >>> to define pinmux values per cpu-type. >>> >>> This takes a different approach to previously proposed solutions which >>> used >>> multiple arrays of pad lists. The goal is to eliminate having these >>> multiple >>> arrays such as 'mx6q_uart1_pads' and 'mx6dl_uart1_pads' which are almost >>> identical copies of each other except for the MX6Q/MX6DL prefix on the >>> PAD. >> >> >> I like this approach, but I think you should also define the IOMUX, >> SETUP_PAD, and SETUP_PADS macros from patch 10 in this file, as they >> (macros and function) are clearly meant to be used together. >> > > I agree with this. Do the macro names IOMUX, SETUP_PAD, SETUP_PADS make sense? > My suggestion would be MX6QDL_DDR_IOMUX, MX6QDL_DDR_SETUP_PADS, and MX6QDL_SETUP_PAD (this last one is not DDR specific). -- Regards, Nikita.