Hi Markus,
On 12.03.2015 15:25, Markus Niebel wrote:
Am 12.03.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Stefan Roese:
By making the tqma6_iomuxc_spi() weak, this patch adds the possibility to
add a different function for this SPI configuration. This can be used
by other baseboards, that might have a different SPI setup.
This patch will be used by the upcoming WRU-IV board support which also
uses the TQMa6 SoM.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de>
---
board/tqc/tqma6/tqma6.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/board/tqc/tqma6/tqma6.c b/board/tqc/tqma6/tqma6.c
index c9e163e..29db838 100644
--- a/board/tqc/tqma6/tqma6.c
+++ b/board/tqc/tqma6/tqma6.c
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static unsigned const tqma6_ecspi1_cs[] = {
TQMA6_SF_CS_GPIO,
};
-static void tqma6_iomuxc_spi(void)
+__weak void tqma6_iomuxc_spi(void)
{
unsigned i;
When implementing an baseboard specific init handler, we will get
> a warning about unused
tqma6_ecspi1_pads and tqma6_ecspi1_cs, or did I miss something?
I'm not getting one with the current (unfinished) WRU4 baseboard. Which
has no SPI.
Just as a thought (not ready): Could we supply CS initialisation
> data via defines in the
baseboard config header and append it to the tables if needed?
Not sure if I understand this correctly. Could you give an example?
Again, my current baseboard has no SPI at all.
Thanks,
Stefan
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
