[PATCH] mxc: Fix pad names for imx51

[Amit Kucheria]

On 10 Jun 10, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 03:09:04PM +0200, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > On 10 Jun 08, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 02:15:47PM -0700, Troy Kisky wrote:
> > > > Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > > > > On 10 Jun 07, Troy Kisky wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > >>> On 10 Jun 04, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > > 
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > 
> > > > >>> +#define MX51_PAD_CSPI1_SCLK__GPIO_4_27		IOMUX_PAD(0x614, 0x224,  3, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
> > > > > 
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > 
> > > > >>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_2__GPIO_1_2		IOMUX_PAD(0x7D4, 0x3CC, 0, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
> > > > >>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_3__GPIO_1_3		IOMUX_PAD(0x7D8, 0x3D0, 0, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
> > > > >>> +#define MX51_PAD_PMIC_INT_REQ__PMIC_INT_REQ	IOMUX_PAD(0x7FC, 0x3D4, 0, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
> > > > >>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_4__GPIO_1_4		IOMUX_PAD(0x804, 0x3D8, 0, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
> > > > >>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_5__GPIO_1_5		IOMUX_PAD(0x808, 0x3DC, 0, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
> > > > >>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_6__GPIO_1_6		IOMUX_PAD(0x80C, 0x3E0, 0, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
> > > > >>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_7__GPIO_1_7		IOMUX_PAD(0x810, 0x3E4, 0, 0x0,   0, MX51_GPIO_PAD_CTRL)
> > > > >>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_8__GPIO_1_8		IOMUX_PAD(0x814, 0x3E8, 0, 0x0,   1, MX51_GPIO_PAD_CTRL)
> > > > >>> +#define MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_9__GPIO_1_9		IOMUX_PAD(0x818, 0x3EC, 0, 0x0,   0, NO_PAD_CTRL)
> > > > >> Why all the stuttering?
> > > > >> Isn't MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_9 or MX51_PAD_DISP2_DAT15 descriptive enough?
> > > > >>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Just following the convention use in the rest of imx devices. See the
> > > > > following comment at the top of the file:
> > > > > 
> > > > > /*
> > > > >  * The naming convention for the pad modes is MX51_PAD_<padname>__<padmode>
> > > > >  * If <padname> or <padmode> refers to a GPIO, it is named
> > > > >  * GPIO_<unit>_<num> see also iomux-v3.h
> > > > >  */
> > > > > 
> > > > > We could use the short names for pads being used in their "native mode".
> > > > > But as soon as we use the pad in a different mode, such as
> > > > > PAD_CSPI1_SCLK__GPIO_4_27 above, we'd need a different naming convention.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Amit
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I'm fine with MX51_PAD_CSPI1_SCLK__GPIO_4_27, but I don't care for
> > > > MX51_PAD_GPIO_1_9__GPIO_1_9. How about changing the comment to
> > > > 
> > > >  /*
> > > >   * The naming convention for the pad modes is MX51_PAD_<padname>
> > > >   * or MX51_PAD_<padname>__<padmode> if padname != padmode.
> > > >   * If <padname> or <padmode> refers to a GPIO, it is named
> > > >   * GPIO_<unit>_<num> see also iomux-v3.h
> > > >   */
> > > 
> > > If anything then MX51_PAD_GPIO_<unit>_<num>. I chose to use the long
> > > name to get a consistent naming and to express the fact that the pad has
> > > a name and the mode has a name which can but don't has to be the same.
> > > 
> > 
> > So will you take a modified patch to reflect this new naming convention?
> 
> Unless there are strong opinions for short names I'd like to keep the
> old naming scheme as it is also used for other i.MX SoCs.
> 

I don't have a strong opinion, but I think that the existing naming
scheme makes things a little more explicit by separating out pad name from
pad mode. I like it a little better.

Regards,
Amit
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amit Kucheria, Kernel Engineer || amit.kucheria at canonical.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------