Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch-mx6: fix MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro to work with MX6 duallite

[Hannes Schmelzer]

On 07/20/2016 10:51 PM, Hannes Schmelzer wrote:
On 07/20/2016 09:30 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
Hi Hannes,
Hi Stefano,
this patch breaks most i.MX6 boards (the not DL) and I revert it. Maybe
I had to ask better before, anyway:
sorry for inconvenience, i should have done more testing on this.
I just tried to compile several i.mx6 boards and found out that I did 
not covered the MX6S which are in trouble now.
On 22/06/2016 12:07, Hannes Schmelzer wrote:
if we build for an i.mx6 (d)ual(l)ite CONFIC_MX6DL we shall use
MX6DL_PAD instead the common MX6_PAD.
Signed-off-by: Hannes Schmelzer<oe5...@oevsv.at>
---

  arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h | 4 ++--
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h 
b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
index 4b6bb18..3465205 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ enum {
  #include "mx6q_pins.h"
  #undef MX6_PAD_DECL
  #define MX6_PAD_DECL(name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc) \
-    MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_,name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
+    MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_, name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
  #include "mx6dl_pins.h"
  };
  #elif defined(CONFIG_MX6Q)
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ enum {
  #elif defined(CONFIG_MX6DL) || defined(CONFIG_MX6S)
  enum {
  #define MX6_PAD_DECL(name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc) \
-    MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6_PAD_,name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
+    MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_, name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
  #include "mx6dl_pins.h"
  };
Can you better explain the problem you had ? The name is not decisive -
the important thing is that the correct include file with the right
layout is included, that means mx6dl_pins.h. And this was mainlined
since a lot of time.
Maybe all the time nobody had to use I2C #4 on an i.mx6 duallite chip, 
doing so i encountered this problem.

The name is decisive for sure, have a closer look to the 
"MX6_PAD_DECLARE" macro,
In conjunction with the correct include file the prefix used to form 
the final register table declaration.

Next the iomux-v3.h is from interest,
the "#define IOMUX_PADS" has dependency on CONFIG_MX6nn, here the 
previous definition out from mx6-pins.h is used.

I will send some V2 to address this topic fully, ok?
We have several boards with 6DL into mainline, so I am missing which is
your problem.

Best regards,
Stefano Babic
cheers,
Hannes
Just looked around a bit more about this.
Root cause for failing this patch is, that many boards do not use the 
'IOMUX_PADS' macro, instead they just directly use the definition out of 
"mx6dl_pins.h" for example.
So we get in trouble there if we change the MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro for 
having MX6DL pads instead MX6 pads.

At one point of view it would make sense to me changing all boards to 
use the IOMUX_PADS macro for accessing pads register, because afterwards 
the real accessed register would be fully in dependence of CONFIG_MX6nn.
On the other hand i cannot fully predict every case could happen if we 
simply change that with search/replace.

So it would be OK for me to drop this patch and i will use on my board:

MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TX_EN__I2C4_SCL
MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TXD1__I2C4_SDA

instead

IOMUX_PADS(PAD_ENET_TX_EN__I2C4_SCL)
IOMUX_PADS(MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TXD1__I2C4_SDA )

Whats your thinking about this?

cheers,
Hannes

_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot