On 08/08/2011 05:09 PM, Robin Holt wrote: > 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?
Why do you think that? Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
