| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <9C64B7751C3BCA41B64A68E23005A7BE1C4746@039-SN1MPN1-002.039d.mgd.msft.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 13:44:16 +0000
From: U Bhaskar-B22300 <B22300@...escale.com>
To: Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
CC: "socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de" <socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<Devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Subject: RE: [RFC 5/5] [powerpc] Implement a p1010rdb clock source.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Holt [mailto:holt@....com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 7:06 PM
> To: Wolfgang Grandegger
> Cc: Robin Holt; U Bhaskar-B22300; socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; Devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org; Marc Kleine-
> Budde
> Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] [powerpc] Implement a p1010rdb clock source.
>
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 03:03:50PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> > On 08/09/2011 02:49 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 12:41:39PM +0000, U Bhaskar-B22300 wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Wolfgang Grandegger [mailto:wg@...ndegger.com]
> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 4:19 PM
> > >>> To: U Bhaskar-B22300
> > >>> Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde; socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de;
> > >>> netdev@...r.kernel.org; Devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
> > >>> Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] [powerpc] Implement a p1010rdb clock source.
> > >>>
> > >>> On 08/09/2011 11:27 AM, U Bhaskar-B22300 wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>> From: Wolfgang Grandegger [mailto:wg@...ndegger.com]
> > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:03 PM
> > >>>>> To: U Bhaskar-B22300
> > >>>>> Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde; socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de;
> > >>>>> netdev@...r.kernel.org; Devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] [powerpc] Implement a p1010rdb clock
> source.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Bhaskar,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 08/09/2011 09:57 AM, U Bhaskar-B22300 wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>> From: Marc Kleine-Budde [mailto:mkl@...gutronix.de]
> > >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:23 AM
> > >>>>>>> To: Wolfgang Grandegger
> > >>>>>>> Cc: socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de; netdev@...r.kernel.org; U
> > >>>>>>> Bhaskar- B22300
> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] [powerpc] Implement a p1010rdb clock
> source.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 08/08/2011 05:33 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> 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)
> > >>>>>> [Bhaskar]I have pushed the FlexCAN series of patches, It
> > >>>>>> contains the usage of all the fields posted in the FlexCAN
> > >>>>>> bindings at
> > >>>>>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-3.0.y.gi
> > >>>>>> t;a=b
> > >>>>>> lo
> > >>>>>> b;f=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fsl-flexcan.txt;h
> > >>>>>> =1a72
> > >>>>>> 9f
> > >>>>>> 089866259ef82d0db5893ff7a8c54d5ccf;hb=94ed5b4788a7cdbe68bc7cb85
> > >>>>>> 16972
> > >>>>>> cb
> > >>>>>> ebdc8274
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> As Marc already pointed out, Robin already has a much more
> > >>>>> advanced patch stack in preparation. Especially your patches do
> > >>>>> not care about the already existing Flexcan core on the
> Freescale's ARM socks.
> > >>>> [Bhaskar] No, the patches are taking care of the existing ARM
> > >>> functionality.
> > >>>> I have not tested on the ARM based board, but the patches are
> > >>>> made
> > >>> in a
> > >>>> Manner that it should not break the ARM based functionality.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> - 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.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> [Bhaskar] As it is mentioned in the Flexcan bindings, the need
> > >>>>>> of
> > >>>>> fsl,flexcan-clock-divider = <2>;
> > >>>>>> But I kept it as "2" because FlexCan clock source is the
> > >>>>> platform clock and it is CCB/2
> > >>>>>> If the "2" is misleading, the bindings can be changed or
> > >>>>>> some
> > >>>>> text can be written to make the meaning of "2"
> > >>>>>> Understandable , Please suggest ..
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The clock source and frequency is fixed. Why do we need an extra
> > >>>>> properties for that. We have panned to remove these bogus
> > >>>>> bindings from the Linux kernel, which sneaked in *without* any
> > >>>>> review on the relevant mailing lists (at least I have not
> > >>>>> realized any posting). We do not think they are really needed.
> > >>>>> They just confuse the user. We also prefer to use the
> > >>>>> compatibility string "fsl,flexcan" instead "fsl,flexcan-v1.0".
> > >>>>> It's unusual to add a version number, which is for the Flexcan
> > >>>>> on the PowerPC cores only, I assume, but there will be device
> > >>>>> tree for ARM soon. A proper compatibility string would be
> "fsl,p1010-flexcan" if we really need to distinguish.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> [Bhaskar] About clock source.. There can be two sources of clock
> > >>>> for
> > >>> the CAN.
> > >>>> Oscillator or the platform clock, but at present only
> platform
> > >>> clock is supported
> > >>>> in P1010.If we remove the fsl,flexcan-clock-source property,
> we
> > >>> will lost the flexibility
> > >>>> of changing the clock source ..
> > >>>>
> > >>>> About clock-frequency... it is also not fixed. It
> > >>>> depends on
> > >>> the platform clock which in turns
> > >>>> Depends on the CCB clock. So it will be better to keep
> > >>>> clock-
> > >>> frequency property which is getting fixed via u-boot.
> > >>>
> > >>> The frequency is fixed to CCB-frequency / 2. Will that ever
> > >>> change? What can we expect from future Flexcan hardware? Will it
> > >>> support further clock sources?
> > >> [Bhaskar] Yes the frequency will always be CCB-frequency/2.Even if
> the CCB gets changed that will be taken care by the u-boot fixup code for
> > >> clock-frequency. clock-frequency is not filled by somebody in the
> dts file. It will be done by u-boot.
> > >> For clock source,I can't say right now, that's why I have kept a
> property for this in the can node. So that in future, we need to fill it
> > >> appropriately
> > >
> > > Speaking of the dts file, I have left the p1010si.dtsi file with the
> > > fsl,flexcan-v1.0 .compatible definition. The flexcan folks (IIRC
> > > Wolfgang) objected to that as it does not follow the standard which
> > > should be just fsl,flexcan.
> > >
> > > How would you like to change that? Should I add it as part of this
> > > patch, add another patch to the series, or let you take care of it?
> > >
> > > Also, I assume the uboot project will need to be changed as well to
> > > reflect the corrected name.
> >
> > I think you should provide patches within this series to cleanup the
> > obsolete stuff, dts and binding doc.
>
> It reads to me that the binding doc now reduces just the required
> properties. Should I remove the file entirely?
[Bhaskar] I think the binding doc should atleast be present with the required properties to give the clarity
about the CAN functionality
can0@...00 {
compatible = "fsl,flexcan";
reg = <0x1c000 0x1000>;
interrupts = <48 0x2>;
interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
clock-frequency = <fixed by u-boot>;
};
>
> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists