Date:	Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:59:48 -0500
From:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	U Bhaskar-B22300 <B22300@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] [powerpc] Implement a p1010rdb clock source.

Ignore this.  We cross in the mail.  I will go back to your other thread.

Robin

On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 10:55:40AM -0500, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 05:33:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> > On 08/08/2011 05:14 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> ...
> 
> > > On 08/08/2011 04:59 PM, 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?
> > > 
> > > ACK - The device tree bindings as in mainline's Documentation is a mess.
> > > If the powerpc guys are happy with a clock interfaces based approach
> > > somewhere in arch/ppc, I'm more than happy to remove:
> > > - fsl,flexcan-clock-source (not implemented, even in the fsl driver)
> > > 
> > > - fsl,flexcan-clock-divider \__ replace with code in arch/ppc, or
> > > - clock-frequency           /   a single clock-frequency attribute
> > 
> > In the "net-next-2.6" tree there is also:
> > 
> >  $ grep flexcan arch/powerpc/boots/dts/*.dts
> >   p1010rdb.dts:			fsl,flexcan-clock-source = "platform";
> >   p1010rdb.dts:			fsl,flexcan-clock-source = "platform";
> >   p1010si.dtsi:			compatible = "fsl,flexcan-v1.0";
> >   p1010si.dtsi:			fsl,flexcan-clock-divider = <2>;
> >   p1010si.dtsi:			compatible = "fsl,flexcan-v1.0";
> >   p1010si.dtsi:			fsl,flexcan-clock-divider = <2>;
> > 
> > Especially the fsl,flexcan-clock-divider = <2>; might make people think,
> > that they could set something else.
> 
> I am currently lost on the direction.  I think I need something like:
> 
> 1) Patch 1/5 removing the "#include <mach/clock.h>" stays.
> 2) Patch 2/5 abstracting readl/writel stays.
> 3) Patch 3/5 of_match for ppc and the match string is "fsl,flexcan" stays.
> 4) Patch 4/5 I have not been given clear direction to not do it but have
>    not gotten a favorable response.
> 5) Patch 5/5 goes from being a powerpc patch back to being a flexcan.c
>    patch which determines the clock source not using the device tree
>    information, but rather from some system register.  I need more detail
>    on how this would work for both arm and powerpc.  How would I absract
>    that or am I providing a flexcan_clk_* set of functions like I have
>    in earlier generations of the patch set?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> Socketcan-core mailing list
> Socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
--
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