Hi Marc, On 08/04/2011 11:47 AM, 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.
Yes. But I was also thinking about a smart integration of platform and of platform bindings as we need this sooner than later for other drivers as well. As you have already realized, already since 2.6.35 there is a common platform_driver_register() and "of_node" is now part of "struct device" allowing a much nice implementation. I will look for a good example in the kernel... Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users
