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.nel...@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
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
