Hi Bhupesh, On 12/21/2010 05:48 AM, Bhupesh SHARMA wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, ... >> In the meantime I compared the CAN chapter of the PCH manual with the >> C_CAN manual. The paragraphs I checked are *identical*. This makes >> clear, that the "pch_can" is a clone of the C_CAN CAN controller, with >> a few extensions, though. Therefore it would make sense, to implement a >> bus sensitive interface like for the SJA1000 allowing to handle both >> CAN >> controllers with one driver sooner than later. Therefore, could you >> please implement: >> >> drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c >> /c_can_platform.c >> >> Then an interface to the PCI based PCH CAN controller could be added >> easily, e.g. as "pch_pci.c". You already had something similar in your >> RFC version of the patch, IIRC. > > This was the approach I initially proposed in my RFC V1 patch :) > But unfortunately we could not agree to it.
I know. But at that time I was not aware of any other bus used for the C_CAN controller. > So, please let me reiterate what I understood and what was present > in RFC version of the patch. Please add your comments/views: > > - drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can.c (similar on lines of sja1000.c) > i.e. a)no *probe* / *remove* functions here, > b)register read/write implemented here. > > - drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can_platform.c (similar on lines of > sja1000_platform.c) > i.e. *probe* / *remove* implemented here, Yes, that's what I'm thinking about. > Marc and Tomoya can also add their suggestions so that I can finalize V3 > a.s.a.p. That would be nice, indeed. Also have a look to Tomoya's PCH driver, which also looks very good in the meantime. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
