On 08/05/2011 01:36 PM, Robin Holt wrote: > I implemented the coding style changes below (Sorry I missed the two > the first time).
np :) > As for a better implementation, I guess I would need to understand what > is being attempted here. I only marginally understand the flexcan > hardware on the Freescale P1010 and certainly am clueless about arm > implementations of flexcan. I just skimmed over freescale's site The arm side is working already :) However we just support the busclock on ARM [1]. For the first shot stick to that clock, too. [1] (http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v3.0/drivers/net/can/flexcan.c#L857) > and it looks like I would be looking at their i.MX25, i.MX28, i.MX35, > and i.MX53 family of processors. I will attempt to find some useful > documentation of those and look at the kernel sources for what the clk_* > functions are trying to accomplish. > > I _THINK_ I understand. It looks like I could implement this as a powerpc > p1010 specific thing and get the same effect without impacting flexcan.c. > I also think I understand that the i.MX25 family of processors do > essentially the same thing the p1010 is doing for determining the > clock rate. It seems that arch/powerpc/platforms/512x/clock.c implements a clock interface. I think the p1010 should implement something similar. (Note: I'm not a ppc guy :) I'm looking forward for new patches. cheers, Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
