AnsweredAssumed Answered

RANT Alert:  Why, oh, why did Freescale go and change all the pin names in the

Question asked by Stephen Munnings on Jun 18, 2014
Latest reply on Jun 21, 2014 by OtavioSalvador

Why, oh, why did Freescale go and change all the pin names in the #include files for the IMX6 processors?  (At least keep the old names for compatibility)

 

I am working on a commercial project.

We have been using Yocto for the build tools (branch - dora) and including a Qt application as part of the process.

We have designed a custom board based on the IMX6 (single) processor and fairly close to the wandboard in general - so we could use Wandboards as the evaluation and early development tools.

 

As part of the wrap-up of the project, I am (re)creating the build environment for our project.

I decided (as an experiment) to try and move the project forward to the daisy branch - which should have been relatively painless.

 

After getting over a few (minor) hurdles, when all seemed to be going quite well, I hit the killer...

Our custom u-boot was developed with 2013.10 (seems to be the "standard" for branch dora)

When I tried to get our u-boot compiled in daisy, it switched to version 2014.01 - shouldn't be much of a problem.

 

HOWEVER.......

 

This is when I discovered that our <board>.c file craps out all over the place because Freescale (I assume it is Freescale) changed all the pin PAD names (well maybe not all, but a large enough number) in the standard include files that are part of 2014.10.

Over and above that, they did not keep the old names for compatibility!!

What kind of bush league move is that!?!? 

 

Does somebody at least have a utility that I can run the source code through to convert all the old names to the new names??

 

I am estimating that there are at least 45 different PAD names that were changed, and to fix this problem, I have to go through and manually scan the old and new include files, decide which old names match to which new names, and then make all the edit changes in the source files (and hope I did not screw this up somewhere).

Some of the changes seemed particularly arbitrary.  Changing Uart pin names from ..._TXD to ..._TXDATA, and similarly for RXD, for example.

 

I can only guess what this is likely to do to my Linux kernel code.  (I think they use common include files at some point)

 

Either of these alternatives just uses too much time (costly time).

 

I guess I could set up one of my yocto layers to go back to using 2013.10 version of u-boot and the previous version of Linux.

 

Either of these alternatives just uses too much time (costly time).

 

SO....

 

I feel that I have been forced to go back to the dora branch and stick with that.

 

I guess the upgrade path from dora to daisy is not all that easy in real life!!

Outcomes