Hi Eric, On 26/08/2013 16:23, Eric Nelson wrote: > > Functionally, we still need table(s) for any image which supports either > variant so the proper set of pads are configured. > > See this for an example > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-October/136394.html >
Ok - what I meant is to avoid to convert the static definitions (enums) in the header in a sort of tables. I agree that using tables in the board code is needed and makes the code more readable using imx_iomux_v3_setup_multiple_pads(). > The construct used in that patch set was to define FOR_DL_SOLO, > then include the pad file. > #ifdef CONFIG_MX6Q > #include "pads.h" > #endif > #if defined(CONFIG_MX6DL) || defined(CONFIG_MX6S) > #define FOR_DL_SOLO > #include "pads.h" > #endif > > Troy's implementation used a naming convention of mx6q_X > and mx6dl_solo_X such that a board supporting both would have > variables > > static iomux_v3_cfg_t mx6q_usdhc3_pads = ... > > followed by > > static iomux_v3_cfg_t mx6dl_solo_usdhc3_pads = ... > ok, this is a solution. Let's wait for next Tapani's patch and when we start the discussion ;-) Best regards, Stefano -- ===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sba...@denx.de ===================================================================== _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot