Hi Stefano,
On 09/01/2013 10:08 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
Hi Otavio,
On 31/08/2013 23:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Eric Nelson
<eric.nel...@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
The primary reason this patch set is sent as an RFC is the overall
feeling that there must be a better way and the fact that none of
these pads is actually used by any current code in U-Boot and the
vast majority of these changes will never do so (OBSERVABILITY
pads, for instance).
I think it is better to have all the pads there so we don't need to
always recheck if the pad is known or not and make changes on this all
the time.
I am not sure I have understood your sentence: what do you mean with
"there" ? Are you suggesting another place for the pads ?
Note that not all of the defined pad options are currently present
in these headers, including some that are being used by some down-stream
boards:
https://github.com/boundarydevices/u-boot-imx6/commit/b9a39fd1756ab95554f4c49b9cf1cde73a9dbda9
I'm taking a look at the XML files distributed as a part of the
IOMux tool to see if they can be used to produce a more complete set.
This will also help in the work of TechNexion guys with the SPL; so I
am all in favor of these changes.
Agree. A full cleanup is necessary before trying to push the changes we
have already discussed.
I tend also to prepare a new branch on u-boot-imx, where I will play the
current status for the imx6 - these changes will not flow into 2013.10,
and maybe having a branch to test will help.
I think a single patch or patch set to clean things up will save effort
in the long term instead of handling things on a pin-by-pin basis as
new boards are designed.
Regards,
Eric
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
