[U-Boot] [PATCH] OMAP3 pandora: update pin mux for rev3 boards

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 07:40 Sun 28 Jun     , Dirk Behme wrote:
> Dear Jean-Christophe,
> 
> Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> >On 19:12 Thu 25 Jun     , Jason Kridner wrote:
> >>   On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
> >>   <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>     On 14:57 Mon 08 Jun     , Grazvydas Ignotas wrote:
> >>     > The update consists of following changes:
> >>     > - remove configuration of not connected pins, effectively
> >>     >   leaving them in safe mode.
> >>     > - remove unused GPIOs, setup newly added ones.
> >>     > - setup pulls for various GPIOs. Disable pulls for game
> >>     >   buttons, as they have external pulls.
> >>     > - SDRC CS change based on recent patch for
> >>     >   Beagle and Overo.
> >>     >
> >>     > Old boards are no longer supported, but there was only
> >>     > small number of test boards made. Updated configuration
> >>     > is expected to be used for mass production.
> >>     If user have old version in possession NACK
> >>
> >>   I believe no users who would possibly object have the old version (or any
> >>   version) in possession.  Only the core developers ever got
> >>these boards.    Is the expectation to create #ifdef or some
> >>sort of auto-detection
> >>   (unlikely possible)?
> >untill the hardware will be really not anymore use yes please
> 
> If two or three people (from the board manufacturer?) which are more
> familiar with the development board situation than you say "we don't
> need it" then this should be accepted. If nobody uses the older
> boards any more (and this is what I understood they said: "There
> were only few older boards, we know where they are and they are
> replaced by new ones") then there is absolutely no reason to pollute
> U-Boot with support for it. There is no need to add dead code to
> U-Boot.
No, it's different no people have a board and some people have a board
> 
> We should trust the board maintainers somehow.
It's not me who tell that some people have the board

when you will be in possession of the old version of a board and just because
few people have the board is remove from the mainline you will not be happy.
So no we will support the both
> 
> >>     this kind of huge update is non bisectable so we do need to use a true
> >>     mux api
> >>     as the kernel lot's of other arch in u-boot
> >>
> >>   Why is it not bisectable?
> >because your mix cleanup, fixup and new board support
> >>   Do you have a "true mux api" to suggest?
> >the same as the kernel one is the best for code sharing
> 
> OMAP3 pin mux in kernel is totally broken.
do you really think it's a good reason to have copy & paster everywhere and
not a simple api as at91, davinic and others?
I do not

Best Regards,
J.