On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Nikita Kiryanov <nik...@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 <nik...@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 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot