netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] net: can: c_can: Add syscon/regmap RAMINIT mechanism

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:	Wed, 01 Oct 2014 13:06:39 +0200
From:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To:	Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
CC:	wg@...ndegger.com, tony@...mide.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mugunthanvnm@...com, george.cherian@...com, balbi@...com,
	nsekhar@...com, nm@...com, sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] net: can: c_can: Add syscon/regmap RAMINIT mechanism

On 10/01/2014 12:57 PM, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>> ...if we just have the instance parameter in the syscon phandle, we have
>>> to put the mapping into the driver, which makes IMHO no sense, because
>>> you have to touch the driver, if there is another SoC with the DCAN core.
> 
> My guess is that TI won't come up with a 3rd variant so we won't have
> to touch the driver, but you never know for sure.

When I comes to 99% compatible hardware.... I've seen some.

>> ... which would be my preferred solution. I think new SoCs should have
>> some kind of:
>>
>> 	compatible = "commodore,c64ultra", "bosch,d_can";
>>
>> in the DT anyhow to allow for SoC specific quirks/adjustments. And
>> custom raminit belongs to that IMO (see the ti routine getting more and
>> more specific).
>>
> 
> Right. For now we need 2 start/stop definations for the existing TI Socs.
> 
> but where to store the raminit start/stop bits? The driver_data currently seems to 
> contain the CAN type C_CAN vs D_CAN without containing it in a platform_data structure.
> 
> Is it OK to create a new platform_data structure for CAN and put the type and raminit start/stop
> bits there?

Yes, have a look how it's handled in the flexcan driver.

regards,
Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)