On 11/05/16 14:28, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
On Sunday 08 May 2016 05:43 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 06/05/16 16:32, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
On Friday 06 May 2016 08:07 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 06/05/16 11:45, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
- /* Last entry */
- TEGRA_IO_PAD_MAX,
Nit should these be TEGRA_IO_PADS_xxx?
Because this was name of single pad and hence I said TEGRA_IO_PAD_XXX.
Aren't these used to set the voltage level and power state for the entire group of IOs? Confused :-(
One IO pad can have multiple IO pins. IO Pad control the power state and voltage of all pins belongs to that IO pad.
Ugh ... I remember for xusb there was something similar we the Tegra docs used pad to imply multiple. However, in general pad == pin == ball or at least should.
Now what should we say PADS or PAD here? TEGRA_IO_PAD_UART or TEGRA_IO_PADS_UART?
Personally, I think pads and that is purely because it aligns with the APIs. I think that the APIs names, tegra_io_pads_xxx() should be consistent with the enum naming.
+};
+/* tegra_io_pads_source_voltage: The voltage level of IO rails which source
the IO pads.- */
+enum tegra_io_pads_source_voltage {
- TEGRA_IO_PADS_SOURCE_VOLTAGE_1800000UV,
- TEGRA_IO_PADS_SOURCE_VOLTAGE_3300000UV,
+};
Nit I wonder if we can make this shorter ...
enum tegra_io_pads_vconf { TEGRA_IO_PADS_VCONF_1V8, TEGRA_IO_PADS_VCONF_3V3,
This looks good but for voltage and current, unit is used uV/uV across the system. So wanted to have same unit.
Now it is an enum does it matter? Or maybe just have ...
enum tegra_io_pads_vconf { TEGRA_IO_PADS_1800000UV, TEGRA_IO_PADS_3300000UV, };
OK, TEGRA_IO_PADS_VCONF_1800000UV and TEGRA_IO_PADS_VCONF_3300000UV. Fine?
Fine :-)
Jon