[U-Boot] [PATCH] tegra: implement pinmux_avoid_func()

[Simon Glass]

Hi Stephen,

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 01/22/2013 02:42 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>> On 01/22/2013 02:13 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>>>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> This selects the "safe" (non-conflicting) mux function for a pin group
>>>>> if the current setting matches the specified function.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many signals can be routed to or from multiple different groups. Each
>>>>> signal must be routed to or from only a single group at a given time.
>>>>> Hence, if we program a particular group for a function, we must ensure
>>>>> no other group is programmed to that same function first. This API
>>>>> makes this easy.
>>>>
>>>> What is the intended use of this function? (sorry, yes, I am confused :-)
>>>
>>> It's a safer way of doing this:
>>> "tegra: pinmux: fix FUNCMUX_NDFLASH_KBC_8_BIT"
>>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-January/144612.html
>>>
>>> i.e. it address the concerns I raised here:
>>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-January/144713.html
>>>
>>
>> OK thank you. So is your function only intended for use with T20?
>
> No, I imagine that it should be used for all Tegras; I just wrote it
> long enough ago that there was only Tegra20 at the time. I assume that
> if Lucas wants to use this function as a pre-cursor to his NAND pinmux
> change, he'll update it for whatever Tegra versions are checked in at
> the time first.
>
Thanks, I get it.

Should Lucas consider adding a warning or some sort of indication that
the function did nothing?

> Sorry, I'm being lazy/over-worked.
>
:-)

Regards,
Simon