[U-Boot] [PATCH] arch-mx6: fix MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro to work with MX6 duallite

[Hannes Schmelzer <hannes@schmelzer.or.at>]

On 07/20/2016 10:51 PM, Hannes Schmelzer wrote:
> On 07/20/2016 09:30 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
>> Hi Hannes,
> Hi Stefano,
>> this patch breaks most i.MX6 boards (the not DL) and I revert it. Maybe
>> I had to ask better before, anyway:
> sorry for inconvenience, i should have done more testing on this.
> I just tried to compile several i.mx6 boards and found out that I did 
> not covered the MX6S which are in trouble now.
>> On 22/06/2016 12:07, Hannes Schmelzer wrote:
>>> if we build for an i.mx6 (d)ual(l)ite CONFIC_MX6DL we shall use
>>> MX6DL_PAD instead the common MX6_PAD.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hannes Schmelzer<oe5hpm@oevsv.at>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>   arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h | 4 ++--
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h 
>>> b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
>>> index 4b6bb18..3465205 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
>>> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ enum {
>>>   #include "mx6q_pins.h"
>>>   #undef MX6_PAD_DECL
>>>   #define MX6_PAD_DECL(name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc) \
>>> -    MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_,name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
>>> +    MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_, name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
>>>   #include "mx6dl_pins.h"
>>>   };
>>>   #elif defined(CONFIG_MX6Q)
>>> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ enum {
>>>   #elif defined(CONFIG_MX6DL) || defined(CONFIG_MX6S)
>>>   enum {
>>>   #define MX6_PAD_DECL(name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc) \
>>> -    MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6_PAD_,name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
>>> +    MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_, name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
>>>   #include "mx6dl_pins.h"
>>>   };
>> Can you better explain the problem you had ? The name is not decisive -
>> the important thing is that the correct include file with the right
>> layout is included, that means mx6dl_pins.h. And this was mainlined
>> since a lot of time.
> Maybe all the time nobody had to use I2C #4 on an i.mx6 duallite chip, 
> doing so i encountered this problem.
>
> The name is decisive for sure, have a closer look to the 
> "MX6_PAD_DECLARE" macro,
> In conjunction with the correct include file the prefix used to form 
> the final register table declaration.
>
> Next the iomux-v3.h is from interest,
> the "#define IOMUX_PADS" has dependency on CONFIG_MX6nn, here the 
> previous definition out from mx6-pins.h is used.
>
> I will send some V2 to address this topic fully, ok?
>> We have several boards with 6DL into mainline, so I am missing which is
>> your problem.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Stefano Babic
> cheers,
> Hannes
Just looked around a bit more about this.
Root cause for failing this patch is, that many boards do not use the 
'IOMUX_PADS' macro, instead they just directly use the definition out of 
"mx6dl_pins.h" for example.
So we get in trouble there if we change the MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro for 
having MX6DL pads instead MX6 pads.

At one point of view it would make sense to me changing all boards to 
use the IOMUX_PADS macro for accessing pads register, because afterwards 
the real accessed register would be fully in dependence of CONFIG_MX6nn.
On the other hand i cannot fully predict every case could happen if we 
simply change that with search/replace.

So it would be OK for me to drop this patch and i will use on my board:

MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TX_EN__I2C4_SCL
MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TXD1__I2C4_SDA

instead

IOMUX_PADS(PAD_ENET_TX_EN__I2C4_SCL)
IOMUX_PADS(MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TXD1__I2C4_SDA )

Whats your thinking about this?

cheers,
Hannes