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

Reply via email to