Date:	Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:59:54 +0200
From:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
To:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
CC:	socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de,
	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
	U Bhaskar-B22300 <B22300@...escale.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] [powerpc] Implement a p1010rdb clock source.

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 <Bhaskar.Upadhaya@...escale.com>
>>>>>> 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?

Wolfgang.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists