Tom, On 01/26/11 19:05, Tom Warren wrote: > Mike, > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Mike Rapoport <[email protected]> wrote: >> My point was that pin muxing belongs to the board code rather than to the >> driver. Driver should just assume that pins are configured elsewhere and it >> does >> not need to deal with pin muxing at all. > I understand that point - sorry if I wasn't clear. No objection to > having pinmux code in board files. > >> Moreover, I'd prefer to see pinmux_board_init or something similar that >> configures all the pins at once rather than collection of pinmux_init_uart, >> pinmux_init_sdmmc, pinmux_init_gmi etc that will grow as more drivers are >> added. >> > I see a couple of reasons not to do it that way. First, I don't know > at this time what all the pinmux settings will be, since I haven't > ported all the periph driver code yet. It's vastly different from > what's acceptable in U-Boot, and will all need significant rewrite. > It'd take me a week to gather all that info, and I'm not at full BW on > this project (one of 4 on my plate right now). > Second, I've been chastised before for including code/features in this > initial patchset that aren't needed or used. I'm trying to keep the > code as simple as possible to make it easier on reviewers and get > through the review in as short a time as possible. This has already > dragged on far longer than I thought it would. > I'm willing to change the pinmux code to make it as generic as > possible, but only if there's a consensus on the list that it has to > be that way to get accepted & pushed.
I'm Ok with pinmux_init_uart in the board code for now. I think that the generic pinmux functionality can be added afterwards. >> > Thanks, > Tom -- Sincerely yours, Mike. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
