[U-Boot] [PATCH RFC 0/22] i.MX6: Update pad declarations for multiple-arch binaries

[Otavio Salvador]

On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Stefano Babic <sbabic at denx.de> wrote:
> Hi Otavio,
>
> On 31/08/2013 23:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Eric Nelson
>> <eric.nelson at boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>>> The primary reason this patch set is sent as an RFC is the overall
>>> feeling that there must be a better way and the fact that none of
>>> these pads is actually used by any current code in U-Boot and the
>>> vast majority of these changes will never do so (OBSERVABILITY
>>> pads, for instance).
>>
>> I think it is better to have all the pads there so we don't need to
>> always recheck if the pad is known or not and make changes on this all
>> the time.
>>
>
> I am not sure I have understood your sentence: what do you mean with
> "there" ? Are you suggesting another place for the pads ?

I wasn't clear, sorry.

I am suggesting we put all pins in U-Boot headers so it does not need
to be added on demand. The on demand addition has higher risk of wrong
assignment, duplication and forces every time we're going to work with
the pins the hassle of checking if the needed ones are already defined
or not.

>> This will also help in the work of TechNexion guys with the SPL; so I
>> am all in favor of these changes.
>
> Agree. A full cleanup is necessary before trying to push the changes we
> have already discussed.
>
> I tend also to prepare a new branch on u-boot-imx, where I will play the
> current status for the imx6 - these changes will not flow into 2013.10,
> and maybe having a branch to test will help.

I understand if the SPL rework cannot go to 2013.10 but pin rename and
rework seem safe enough to go. This provides a safer base for SPL work
and multi-soc support later.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750