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