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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:27:44 +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 05:25 PM, Robin Holt wrote: > On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 05:18:57PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> 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? > > In patch 3/5 in this series (attached below), I made a change in how > device discovery works. Without that of_match stuff, the flexcan > driver was never getting its flexcan_probe function called. As soon > as I added that, it worked. Looking at the driver_register path, this > appeared to be the "correct" way to implement the device discovery. > Did I miss something? I already clarified my statement. Hope you agree now. 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