netdev - Re: [RFC 5/5] [powerpc] Implement a p1010rdb clock source.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:48:08 -0500
From:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
Cc:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>, socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de,
	U Bhaskar-B22300 <B22300@...escale.com>,
	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] [powerpc] Implement a p1010rdb clock source.

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."

My question remains "What should we be naming the device tree node in
general.  Line 5 of the fsl-flexcan.txt file specifically calls the node
"fsl,flexcan-v1.0"  In the .dts file the freescale patches introduces into
the arch/powerpc portion of the kernel, they call it that same thing.
Likewise, in the code already checked into uboot it is the same name.
Whether it is needed or not for the clock frequency, it does need to
be consistent between the .dts file and the driver for device discovery
to work.

Thanks,
Robin
--
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