Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 09:17:53AM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> From: Wolfgang Grandegger <w...@denx.de>
>>
>> The main differences compared to the MSCAN on the MPC5200 are:
>>
>> - More flexibility in choosing the CAN source clock and frequency:
>>
>> Three different clock sources can be selected: "ip", "ref" or "sys".
>> For the latter two, a clock divider can be defined as well. If the
>> clock source is not specified by the device tree, we first try to
>> find an optimal CAN source clock based on the system clock. If that
>> is not possible, the reference clock will be used.
>>
>> - The behavior of bus-off recovery is configurable:
>>
>> To comply with the usual handling of Socket-CAN bus-off recovery,
>> "recovery on request" is selected (instead of automatic recovery).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Grandegger <w...@denx.de>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/can/mscan/Kconfig | 2 +-
>> drivers/net/can/mscan/mpc5xxx_can.c | 234
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> drivers/net/can/mscan/mscan.c | 41 +++++--
>> drivers/net/can/mscan/mscan.h | 81 ++++++------
>> 4 files changed, 271 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-)
>>
[snip]
>> +#else /* !CONFIG_PPC_MPC5200 */
>> +static u32 __devinit mpc52xx_can_get_clock(struct of_device *ofdev,
>> + const char *clock_name,
>> + int *mscan_clksrc)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PPC_MPC5200 */
>
> Hmmm, I don't really like those empty functions. I once used the data-field of
> struct of_device_id, which carried a function pointer to a specific
> init-function for the matched device. What do you think about such an
> approach?
Often the problem is that the function will not compile on the other MPC
arch. This is not true here. So, the main reason for the #ifdefs is
space saving. Your approach will not help in both cases.
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MPC512x
>> +struct mpc512x_clockctl {
>> + u32 spmr; /* System PLL Mode Reg */
>> + u32 sccr[2]; /* System Clk Ctrl Reg 1 & 2 */
>> + u32 scfr1; /* System Clk Freq Reg 1 */
>> + u32 scfr2; /* System Clk Freq Reg 2 */
>> + u32 reserved;
>> + u32 bcr; /* Bread Crumb Reg */
>> + u32 pccr[12]; /* PSC Clk Ctrl Reg 0-11 */
>> + u32 spccr; /* SPDIF Clk Ctrl Reg */
>> + u32 cccr; /* CFM Clk Ctrl Reg */
>> + u32 dccr; /* DIU Clk Cnfg Reg */
>> + u32 mccr[4]; /* MSCAN Clk Ctrl Reg 1-3 */
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct of_device_id mpc512x_clock_ids[] __devinitdata = {
>> + { .compatible = "fsl,mpc5121-clock", },
>> + {}
>> +};
>> +
>> +static u32 __devinit mpc512x_can_get_clock(struct of_device *ofdev,
>> + const char *clock_name,
>> + int *mscan_clksrc,
>> + ssize_t mscan_addr)
>> +{
>> + struct mpc512x_clockctl __iomem *clockctl;
>> + struct device_node *np_clock;
>> + struct clk *sys_clk, *ref_clk;
>> + int plen, clockidx, clocksrc = -1;
>> + u32 sys_freq, val, clockdiv = 1, freq = 0;
>> + const u32 *pval;
>> +
>> + np_clock = of_find_matching_node(NULL, mpc512x_clock_ids);
>> + if (!np_clock) {
>> + dev_err(&ofdev->dev, "couldn't find clock node\n");
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> + }
>> + clockctl = of_iomap(np_clock, 0);
>> + if (!clockctl) {
>> + dev_err(&ofdev->dev, "couldn't map clock registers\n");
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* Determine the MSCAN device index from the physical address */
>> + clockidx = (mscan_addr & 0x80) ? 1 : 0;
>> + if (mscan_addr & 0x2000)
>> + clockidx += 2;
>
> The PSCs use 'cell-index', here we use mscan_addr to derive the index. This is
> not consistent, but should be IMHO. Now, which is the preferred way? I think
> I'd go for 'cell-index', as other processors might have mscan_addr shuffled.
> Also, we could use 'of_iomap' again in the probe_routine.
I understood that "cell-index" is deprecated and it has been removed
from many nodes. That's why I used the address to derive the index.
I will fix all other issues.
Wolfgang.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
