I've just had a look at the i.MX (MC9328 MX1, or however this thing is called) Port in current CVS. The main differences are:
- Like Robert said, my patch introduces less duplication of code - the serial driver in CVS supports only a fixed (hardcoded) baudrate - the architecture include file from cvs only has register definitions while my port also has bitmasks for most registers as well as a convenience function imx_gpio_mode which lets you set the gpio primary/alternate functions without having to play with hex values. - different boards supported. Two custom boards <-> MX1ADS. Adding support for MX1ADS should be no problem, though, since we only have to rewrite some register definitions. Unfortunately I don't have the hardware.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 05:59:13PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 20040618152118.GA27424@pengutronix.de you wrote:
Well, Sascha's patch was our attempt to clean it up ;)
But AFAICT they are against an OLD version of U-Boot, which did not yet include Ming-Len Wu's patches.
No problem, I can send a patch against current CVS.
So what is your suggestion?
We can:
(1) add your patch (2) add your patch and revert Ming-Len Wu's patch (3) use Ming-Len Wu's code as base for which you submit fixes/improvements
(1) means that we have the same architecture / board supported twice differently. Not good. rejected.
From your posting it seems clear that your position is (2) [is it?];
So I would prefer position (2), too.
Greetings
Sascha Hauer