[PATCH v2 14/15] ARM: mxs: Add initial mx28evk support

2010/12/9 Uwe Kleine-K?nig [off-list ref]:

Hello Shawn
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 05:03:54PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:

quoted

2010/12/9 Uwe Kleine-K?nig [off-list ref]:

quoted

Hello Shwan,

ups, sorry for mistyping your name.

quoted

quoted

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 03:04:37PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:

quoted

2010/12/9 Uwe Kleine-K?nig [off-list ref]:

quoted

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 12:32:02AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:

quoted

+static iomux_cfg_t mx28evk_pads[] = {

This can be const and __initconst, ditto for mx23evk

With u64 iomux_cfg_t changes, I'm afraid the suggestion becomes invalid.

Really? Why?

I'm confused by the compiling error below when adding __initconst for
mx28evk_pads[], and mistakenly blaming u64 iomux_cfg_t changes.

arch/arm/mach-mxs/mach-mx28evk.c: In function ?mx28evk_init?:
arch/arm/mach-mxs/mach-mx28evk.c:34: error: mx28_fec_pdata causes a
section type conflict
make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-mxs/mach-mx28evk.o] Error 1
make: *** [arch/arm/mach-mxs] Error 2

Actually it can be fixed by the following change.

-static const struct fec_platform_data mx28_fec_pdata __initconst = {
+static struct fec_platform_data mx28_fec_pdata __initconst = {
? ? ? ? ?.phy = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RMII,
?};

this change is wrong. ?You need to assert that all data being marked
with __initconst is const, too.

After adding const for mx28evk_pads[], I got the following error.

  CC      arch/arm/mach-mxs/mach-mx28evk.o
arch/arm/mach-mxs/mach-mx28evk.c: In function ?mx28evk_init?:
arch/arm/mach-mxs/mach-mx28evk.c:102: warning: passing argument 1 of
?mxs_iomux_setup_multiple_pads? discards qualifiers from pointer
target type
arch/arm/mach-mxs/include/mach/iomux.h:115: note: expected
?iomux_cfg_t *? but argument is of type ?const iomux_cfg_t *?

This takes me back to my first judgment.  Is it proper to add
__initconst for mx28evk_pads[]? We are changing iomux_cfg_t to u64 for
making pad definition modifiable.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn