On 4/13/2014 4:01 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Troy Kisky > <troy.ki...@boundarydevices.com> wrote: > >> NAK. Please don't use NO_PAD_CTRL. What is wrong with >> SPI_PAD_CTRL. Your commit message doesn't say. >> It is an SPI pin (even if used as a GPIO,) so >> why doesn't it make sense. > > SPI_PAD_CTRL should be used by the pads that have SPI functionality. > > This is not the case for the MX6_PAD_EIM_D19__GPIO3_IO19, which is a > GPIO, so why SPI_PAD_CTRL? > > If we follow your argument then the enet_pads1 array is incorrect and > we should change all of them to ENET_PAD_CTRL instead.
I would ack that patch. I do believe that all NO_PAD_CTRL should be replaced with whatever the register actually contains currently. A "nop" patch that just makes things explicit. Would you have a problem with that patch? For your particular example of enet, I see no reason that the pad settings should change when switching the mux from ENET to gpio. Btw, I do appreciate your looking at this board file. Sorry, if I sounded rude. Troy _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
