On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Nikita Kiryanov nikita@compulab.co.il wrote:
On 06/05/14 07:35, Tim Harvey wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Eric Nelson eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com wrote:
<snip>
The function name ..._array() also doesn't really capture what's going on here. Naming is hard though, and I'm not coming up with something else.
Perhaps 'sparse', 'skip', or alternate?
ya, I'm not sure anything else is more explanatory when we are doing something like this. Its bad enough that its likely difficult for someone to understand their first time through that we are doing this to eliminate multiple structs.
Come to think of it, I don't think we need an _array() function at all. The list selection and stride size are IOMUX_PADS implementation details. It's not something we should expose to the function user. is_cpu_type() and ifdef(CONFIG_MX6QDL) can be used to decide the list and stride values inside imx_iomux_v3_setup_multiple_pads(), and then this function could be used for both single and multi cpu type situations.
<snip> >> >> +/* macros for declaring and using pinmux array */ >> +#define IOMUX_PADS(x) (MX6Q_##x), (MX6DL_##x) > > > In a similar vein to my comment about Patch 8, I do wonder if a > minor extension of this will allow use with a single-variant > board though.
for a single-variant one would just use the original IOMUX_PAD/imx_iomux_v3_setup_pad/imx_iomux_v3_setup_pad right?
They can, but then we don't get to use the same code for both situations. If we define two versions of IOMUX_PADS: one for multi cpu type, and one for single cpu type, then the pinmux arrays for both situations will be syntactically similar. When combined with my other suggestion, it will be very easy to take a U-Boot configured for one CPU type, and reconfigure it to support both CPU types.
Nikita,
Excellent idea - I've merged that idea into my new patchset that I will post shortly.
Tim