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, 08 Aug 2011 17:18:57 +0200
From:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
To:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
CC:	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 08/08/2011 05:09 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 04:59:54PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> I will rebase shortly and provide a newer set of patches.
> 
> I do think powerpc does need the device tree support.  That is how the flexcan_probe
> is getting called.  How would you suggest I do it otherwise?

Why do you think that?

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