On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 05:22:41PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > 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.
I agree with that. The can definition in the .dts file, however, should be can0@... "fsl,flexcan" in an ideal world, correct? If that is correct, then I will make the of_match string match fsl,flexcan and update the .dts file accordingly. Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
