Dear Fabio Estevam, > Hi Michael, > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Michael Heimpold <m...@heimpold.de> wrote: > > Sorry, but I think this is not correct. Please have a look > > at the reference manual for i.MX28 page 786: > > It seems that some pins have an internal pullup, but other > > pins "only" have the internal keeper you mentioned. > > > > Quote from : > > bank 0 pin 24: "Set this bit to one to _enable_ the internal pullup..." > > bank 0 pin 25: "Set this bit to one to _disable_ the internal keeper..." > > > > So I think the current implementation is correct. > > Ok, I see. > > mx23 does not have the "Set this bit to one to _enable_ the internal > pullup" option. > > > However, if you are trying to enable a pullup for a pin which does not > > have this function (e.g. because the hardware guys trimmed the BOM > > and did not spend an external pullup) you are actually disabling the > > keeper which makes the situation even worse in some situations. > > > > I'm still wondering what an ideal solution could be... > > So I plan to keep mx28 bits untouched and do the reverse definition > only for mx23: > > #if defined CONFIG_MX28 > #define PAD_PULLUP 1 > #define PAD_NOPULL 0 > #else > #define PAD_PULLUP 0 > #define PAD_NOPULL 1 > #endif
Wait, this code is pulled from Linux kernel. How does Linux solve that? Is it also broken in Linux? Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
