netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/4] can: bxcan: add support for single peripheral configuration

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]

Message-ID: <20230423-surplus-spoon-4e8194434663-mkl@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Sun, 23 Apr 2023 21:16:54 +0200
From:   Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To:     Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Amarula patchwork <linux-amarula@...rulasolutions.com>,
        michael@...rulasolutions.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] can: bxcan: add support for single peripheral
 configuration

On 23.04.2023 19:25:28, Dario Binacchi wrote:
> Add support for bxCAN controller in single peripheral configuration:
> - primary bxCAN
> - dedicated Memory Access Controller unit
> - 512-byte SRAM memory
> - 14 fiter banks
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com>
> 
> ---
> 
>  drivers/net/can/bxcan.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/bxcan.c b/drivers/net/can/bxcan.c
> index e26ccd41e3cb..9bcbbb85da6e 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/can/bxcan.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/can/bxcan.c
> @@ -155,6 +155,7 @@ struct bxcan_regs {
>  	u32 reserved0[88];		/* 0x20 */
>  	struct bxcan_mb tx_mb[BXCAN_TX_MB_NUM];	/* 0x180 - tx mailbox */
>  	struct bxcan_mb rx_mb[BXCAN_RX_MB_NUM];	/* 0x1b0 - rx mailbox */
> +	u32 reserved1[12];		/* 0x1d0 */
>  };
>  
>  struct bxcan_priv {
> @@ -922,6 +923,12 @@ static int bxcan_get_berr_counter(const struct net_device *ndev,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static const struct regmap_config bxcan_gcan_regmap_config = {
> +	.reg_bits = 32,
> +	.val_bits = 32,
> +	.reg_stride = 4,
> +};
> +
>  static int bxcan_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
>  	struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> @@ -942,11 +949,18 @@ static int bxcan_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  	gcan = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle(np, "st,gcan");
>  	if (IS_ERR(gcan)) {
> -		dev_err(dev, "failed to get shared memory base address\n");
> -		return PTR_ERR(gcan);
> +		primary = true;
> +		gcan = devm_regmap_init_mmio(dev,
> +					     regs + sizeof(struct bxcan_regs),
> +					     &bxcan_gcan_regmap_config);
> +		if (IS_ERR(gcan)) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "failed to get filter base address\n");
> +			return PTR_ERR(gcan);
> +		}

This probably works. Can we do better, i.e. without this additional code?

If you add a syscon node for the single instance CAN, too, you don't
need a code change here, right?

> +	} else {
> +		primary = of_property_read_bool(np, "st,can-primary");
>  	}
>  
> -	primary = of_property_read_bool(np, "st,can-primary");
>  	clk = devm_clk_get(dev, NULL);
>  	if (IS_ERR(clk)) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "failed to get clock\n");

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde          |
Embedded Linux                   | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung Nürnberg              | Phone: +49-5121-206917-129 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9   |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)