[v2,2/3] ARM: i.MX51: clean up iomux-mx51.h

Delete about 700 used only once symbols.

I used the following script to clean up the file,
iomux-mx51.h.

cp iomux-mx51.h iomux-mx51.h.cpy

sed -n iomux-mx51.h.cpy \
-e 's/#define[ \x09]\+\(_MX5[0-9a-zA-Z_]*\)[ \x09]\+\(.\+\)/s@\1@\2@g/p' >t.tmp

sed iomux-mx51.h.cpy \
-e '/define[ \x09]\+_MX5/d' \
-f t.tmp \
-e 's/,[ \x09]*\([^,]\+\)/, \1/g' \
-e 's/, 0)[ \x09]*|[ \x09]*MUX_PAD_CTRL(/, /' \
-e 's/(IOMUX_PAD(\(.*\)))/IOMUX_PAD(\1)/' \
-e 's/0x\([0-9a-fA-F]\{2\}\)[ \x09]*,/0x0\1,/' \
-e 's/0x0\([0-9a-fA-F]\{3\}\)[ \x09]*,/0x\1,/' \
-e '/#include <mach\/iomux-v3.h/ a#define __NA_\x090x000\n' \
-e 's/0x[0]\{1,3\},/__NA_,/' \
-e 's/#define[ \x09]\+\(MX5[0-9a-zA-Z_]*\)[ \x09]\+\(IOMUX_PAD.\+\)/#define \1\x09\2/' \
-e 's/\(#define MX5[^\x09]\{5,12\}\)\x09\(IOMUX_PAD.\+\)/\1\x09\x09\x09\x09\2/' \
-e 's/\(#define MX5[^\x09]\{13,20\}\)\x09\(IOMUX_PAD.\+\)/\1\x09\x09\x09\2/' \
-e 's/\(#define MX5[^\x09]\{21,28\}\)\x09\(IOMUX_PAD.\+\)/\1\x09\x09\2/' \
-e 's/\(#define MX5[^\x09]\{29,36\}\)\x09\(IOMUX_PAD.\+\)/\1\x09\2/' \
-e 's/\(#define MX5[^\x09]\{45,\}\)\x09\(IOMUX_PAD.\+\)/\1\x09\\\n\x09\x09\x09\x09\x09\x09\2/' \
-e 's/, IOMUX_CONFIG_SION,/, 0 | IOMUX_CONFIG_SION,/' \
-e 's/\((0x[0-9a-fA-F]*, 0x[0-9a-fA-F]*, \)0x0\([0-9a-fA-F]\{2\},\)/\10x\2/' >iomux-mx51.h

Signed-off-by: Troy Kisky <troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
---
 arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h | 2270 +++++++++------------------
 1 files changed, 758 insertions(+), 1512 deletions(-)

I didn't include the entire patch because it is too big for the mailing list.
Beside, you'll probably want to run the above script last thing before sending a pull
for a clean up branch to avoid conflicts.

Hi Troy,

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Troy Kisky
<troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
...
> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h
> index df6acc0..c7f5169 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h
> @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
>  #define __MACH_IOMUX_MX51_H__
>
>  #include <mach/iomux-v3.h>
> +#define __NA_  0x000
> +

Do we really need this __NA_ define? Can´t we continue just writing 0
in the macro?

Regards,

Fabio Estevam

On 8/11/2011 7:53 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Troy,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Troy Kisky
> <troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
> ...
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h
>> index df6acc0..c7f5169 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h
>> @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
>>  #define __MACH_IOMUX_MX51_H__
>>
>>  #include <mach/iomux-v3.h>
>> +#define __NA_  0x000
>> +
> 
> Do we really need this __NA_ define? Can´t we continue just writing 0
> in the macro?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fabio Estevam

First, welcome back from vacation and thanks for taking the time to review.

I like the __NA_ macro for a couple of reasons.


1. It keeps the macro arguments aligned from line to line. 5 character
name so that a line that uses 0xnnn instead, usually has its arguments
aligned with a line that uses __NA_.

2. It makes it more obvious that this field is "not applicable" to this
setting.

3. NON_PAD_I is replaced with __NA_ as it has the same use, and keeps
alignment.


But if Sascha agrees with you, I will change it as it is not really
important to me. Sascha, if you do agree, please also tell me what you
want done with NON_PAD_I.

Thanks
Troy

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:43:02AM -0700, Troy Kisky wrote:
> On 8/11/2011 7:53 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> > Hi Troy,
> > 
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Troy Kisky
> > <troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h
> >> index df6acc0..c7f5169 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h
> >> @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
> >>  #define __MACH_IOMUX_MX51_H__
> >>
> >>  #include <mach/iomux-v3.h>
> >> +#define __NA_  0x000
> >> +
> > 
> > Do we really need this __NA_ define? Can´t we continue just writing 0
> > in the macro?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Fabio Estevam
> 
> First, welcome back from vacation and thanks for taking the time to review.
> 
> I like the __NA_ macro for a couple of reasons.
> 
> 
> 1. It keeps the macro arguments aligned from line to line. 5 character
> name so that a line that uses 0xnnn instead, usually has its arguments
> aligned with a line that uses __NA_.
> 
> 2. It makes it more obvious that this field is "not applicable" to this
> setting.
> 
> 3. NON_PAD_I is replaced with __NA_ as it has the same use, and keeps
> alignment.

I'm fine with the __NA_ macro.

Sascha