On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 11:47:53AM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 08/04/2011 10:25 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > > On 08/04/2011 10:09 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > >> Hi Robin, > >> > >> On 08/04/2011 05:23 AM, Robin Holt wrote: > >>> I have spent some more time working on this. I took their code from the > >>> April BSP and am reworking it to be a much cleaner (IMHO) implementation. > >>> Hopefully I will have a set of patches for you tomorrow. > >>> > >>> Right now, I am down to the point of getting the _probe function > >>> abstracted off. I think I will get it fairly clean when I am completed. > >> > >> Not sure what are you trying to do? What is missing in the mainline > >> Flexcan driver are the device tree bindings. Unfortunately, Freescale's > >> driver is not a good approach. I think it can be done much simpler, > >> especially with the new device-tree integration available in v3.0. > >> Robin, you have the mainline kernel running for a P1010 board, right? > > > > You patches are a good starting point for discussion... > > Have you already posted them? > > From my point of view there are two problems: > - OF tree integration (iomem, irq, clock) > - endianess > > The fsl driver assumes that OF tree means a big endian hardware, this is > not true for arm, where we have OF tree now.
I implemented the endianess bits with a couple static inlines called flexcan_read/flexcan_write. It looks like OF tree integration has really become platform_device integration which appears to have already been done. Is that right? Robin _______________________________________________ Socketcan-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users
