On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 04:59:54PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > On 08/08/2011 04:44 PM, Robin Holt wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 04:37:44PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > >> On 08/08/2011 04:21 PM, Robin Holt wrote: > >>> On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 04:16:27PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > >>>> On 08/08/2011 03:56 PM, Robin Holt wrote: > >>>>>> commit 65bb8b060a873fa4f5188f2951081f6011259614 > >>>>>> Author: Bhaskar Upadhaya <[email protected]> > >>>>>> Date: Fri Mar 4 20:27:58 2011 +0530 > >>>>> > >>>>> On a side note, that commit fixes up "fsl,flexcan-v1.0" > >>>>> ... > >>>>> + do_fixup_by_compat_u32(blob, "fsl,flexcan-v1.0", > >>>>> + "clock_freq", gd->bus_clk, 1); > >>>>> > >>>>> Should I go back to flexcan-v1.0 in my patches? > >>>> > >>>> Well, no. Let's wait. I don't think we need it. Also, it sets > >>>> "clock_freq" while > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.0.1/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fsl-flexcan.txt > >>>> > >>>> documents "clock-frequencies"... :-(. > >>> > >>> You answered a different question that I was asking. I was asking if > >>> I should change fsl,flexcan back to fsl,flexcan-v1.0 as documented on > >>> line 5. The clock_freq looks like a uboot change will need to be made > >>> as well. > >> > >> Well, I wrote above: "Well, no. Let's wait. I don't think we need it." > >> > >> For the P1010 we can sinmply derive the clock frequency from > >> "fsl_get_sys_freq()", which is fine for the time being. No extra > >> properties, etc. The clk implemetation might go into > >> > >> http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.0.1/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/clock.c > >> > >> or > >> > >> http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.0.1/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c > >> > >> And may depend on HAVE_CAN_FLEXCAN > >> > >> BTW, I have not found HAVE_CAN_FLEXCAN in your patch. What kernel are > >> you using? > > > > I am starting with the v3.0 kernel, apply one patch from the freescale BSP > > we receive under NDA which introduces the P1010RDB board into the QorIQ > > platform, and then work from there for the flexcan stuff. That patch > > introduces the HAVE_CAN_FLEXCAN. I do not like how freescale structured > > that Kconfig bit, so I have tweaked it to be selected automatically > > when P1010RDB, NET, and CAN are selected. That allows the CAN_FLEXCAN > > selection to determine is we are going to build the flexcan.c file. > > ARM boards select HAVE_CAN_FLEXCAN and I do not see a good reason why > we should do it differently for PowerPC. > > For mainline inclusion, you should provide your patches against the > David Millers "net-next-2.6" tree, which already seems to have support > for the P1010RDB: > > config P1010_RDB > bool "Freescale P1010RDB" > select DEFAULT_UIMAGE > help > This option enables support for the MPC85xx RDB (P1010 RDB) board > > P1010RDB contains P1010Si, which provides CPU performance up to 800 > MHz and 1600 DMIPS, additional functionality and faster interfaces > (DDR3/3L, SATA II, and PCI Express). > > > > Our contact with Freescale would prefer that I not post that patch until > > we get the OK from freescale to do so since we received it under NDA. > > I don't think we currently need it. I prefer dropping and cleaning up > the device tree stuff as it is not needed for the P1010 anyway. If a > new processor shows up with enhanced capabilities requiring > configuration via device tree, we or somebody else can provide a patch. > Marc, what do you think?
I will rebase shortly and provide a newer set of patches. I do think powerpc does need the device tree support. That is how the flexcan_probe is getting called. How would you suggest I do it otherwise? Robin _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
