[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] arm: mx6: tqma6: Update to optionally configure an alternative SPI setup

[Stefan Roese]

Hi Markus,

On 12.03.2015 15:25, Markus Niebel wrote:
> Am 12.03.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Stefan Roese:
>> By making the tqma6_iomuxc_spi() weak, this patch adds the possibility to
>> add a different function for this SPI configuration. This can be used
>> by other baseboards, that might have a different SPI setup.
>>
>> This patch will be used by the upcoming WRU-IV board support which also
>> uses the TQMa6 SoM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <sr at denx.de>
>> ---
>>   board/tqc/tqma6/tqma6.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/board/tqc/tqma6/tqma6.c b/board/tqc/tqma6/tqma6.c
>> index c9e163e..29db838 100644
>> --- a/board/tqc/tqma6/tqma6.c
>> +++ b/board/tqc/tqma6/tqma6.c
>> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static unsigned const tqma6_ecspi1_cs[] = {
>>   	TQMA6_SF_CS_GPIO,
>>   };
>>
>> -static void tqma6_iomuxc_spi(void)
>> +__weak void tqma6_iomuxc_spi(void)
>>   {
>>   	unsigned i;
>>
> When implementing an baseboard specific init handler, we will get
 > a warning about unused
> tqma6_ecspi1_pads and tqma6_ecspi1_cs, or did I miss something?

I'm not getting one with the current (unfinished) WRU4 baseboard. Which 
has no SPI.

> Just as a thought (not ready): Could we supply CS initialisation
 > data via defines in the
> baseboard config header and append it to the tables if needed?

Not sure if I understand this correctly. Could you give an example? 
Again, my current baseboard has no SPI at all.

Thanks,
Stefan