On Monday 28 November 2011 15:14:40 Simon Glass wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 23 November 2011 17:59:06 Simon Glass wrote: > >> + int i; > > > > size_t > > Ick. OK.
why ick ? :)
> >> + for (i = 0; i < UART_COUNT; i++) {
> >
> > ... and then did ARRAY_SIZE(id_for_uart) ?
> >
> >> +void board_init_uart_f(void)
> >> +{
> >> + int uart_ids = 0; /* bit mask of which UART ids to enable */
> >> +
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_TEGRA2_ENABLE_UARTA
> >> + uart_ids |= UARTA;
> >> +#endif
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_TEGRA2_ENABLE_UARTB
> >> + uart_ids |= UARTB;
> >> +#endif
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_TEGRA2_ENABLE_UARTD
> >> + uart_ids |= UARTD;
> >> +#endif
> >> + setup_uarts(uart_ids);
> >> +}
> >
> > we added a func in the Blackfin pinmux API where you could pass it a list
> > of peripherals to mux. so you could do:
> > static const unsigned pin_list[] = {
> > #ifdef CONFIG_TEGRA2_ENABLE_UARTA
> > UART1,
> > #endif
> > 0,
> > };
> > pinmux_request_list(pin_list);
> >
> > and the list version would just walk the 0-terminated array calling
> > pinmux_request() automatically
>
> Well yes, but funcmux isn't about pins, it's about whole functions. We
> could provide a new function to enable a list of functions, but for
> now there really wouldn't be any callers. UART1 is just our own number
> - the callee requires a peripheral ID.
the Blackfin API is given an ID that encodes both the requested function and
the pin. i meant doing that instead of bit packing and unpacking ids that
later get expanded.
although with the pinmux framework getting merged into Linux, this is probably
now a moot point. stick with whatever you have working as it'll all get
thrown out once we migrate to that in u-boot :).
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
