Jason Liu wrote:
> The patch add header files to support the pin multiplexer
> of the the Freescale i.MX53 processor.
>
> Signed-off-by:Jason Liu <r64...@freescale.com>
Hi Jason,
> ---
> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx53/iomux.h | 193 +++++++++++++++
> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx53/mx53_pins.h | 359
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 552 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx53/iomux.h
> b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx53/iomux.h
As I said for the previous patches, we must avoid to duplicate files.
This file must be merged with mx51 counterpart. As I see, the two files
have small differences.
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx53/mx53_pins.h
> b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx53/mx53_pins.h
> new file mode 100644
Definitions for mx53 are different as for mx51, so probably it is not
possible to merge them in a single structure. But we can have a single
file (mx5_pins.h, maybe ?), using #ifdef to set the different pins.
> +enum iomux_pins {
> + MX53_PIN_GPIO_19 = _MXC_BUILD_GPIO_PIN(3, 5, 1, 0x20, 0x348),
> + MX53_PIN_KEY_COL0 = _MXC_BUILD_GPIO_PIN(3, 6, 1, 0x24, 0x34C),
I think the best way should be to get rid of the cpu related names, and
use a more general approach. For exammple, we have MX51_PIN_KEY_COL0
defined for the MX51. It should be better to have for example
MX5_PIN_KEY_COL0, whose value is different if our target is a MX51 or MX53.
What do you think ?
Best regards,
Stefano Babic
--
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: off...@denx.de
=====================================================================
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
