On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Nikita Kiryanov nikita@compulab.co.il wrote:
On 04/09/2014 06:40 PM, Tim Harvey wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Nikita Kiryanov nikita@compulab.co.il 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.
Stefano,
You mentioned in another thread you had some remarks about my pinmux proposal here? I'm anxious to post a v2 patch and keep this ball rolling.
Thanks,
Tim