On 08/08/2011 05:18 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > 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?
To be clear. I mean we do not need the extra "fsl," properties for the clock source and divider and frequency. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
