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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 1 Oct 2014 13:57:54 +0300
From:	Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
To:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.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 01:43 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>>> Unfortunately it is 5 ;)
>>> We have display IP related bit in between 3 and 5 :P
>>
>> What on earth were the HW engineers thinking????????????
> 
> "Let's test my RNG on the bit-placement of this register" :)

:D

> 
>> ...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.

> 
> ... 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?

cheers,
-roger
--
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