On 08/08/2011 04:59 PM, 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?
ACK - The device tree bindings as in mainline's Documentation is a mess. If the powerpc guys are happy with a clock interfaces based approach somewhere in arch/ppc, I'm more than happy to remove: - fsl,flexcan-clock-source (not implemented, even in the fsl driver) - fsl,flexcan-clock-divider \__ replace with code in arch/ppc, or - clock-frequency / a single clock-frequency attribute 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
