2009/5/21 Piotr Zięcik :
> Thursday 14 May 2009 16:00:33 Grant Likely wrote:
>> > MPC5121 support was added to drivers/net/fs_enet. MPC52xx uses
>> > drivers/net/fec_mpc52xx.c. Do you think that creating one universal
>> > driver from these two is now possible? You said that it should be easy,
>> >
Thursday 14 May 2009 16:00:33 Grant Likely wrote:
> > MPC5121 support was added to drivers/net/fs_enet. MPC52xx uses
> > drivers/net/fec_mpc52xx.c. Do you think that creating one universal
> > driver from these two is now possible? You said that it should be easy,
> > however you also said that cac
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 13:26 +0200, Piotr Zięcik wrote:
> Tuesday 19 May 2009 00:17:31 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > We are close to the point where we can make this a runtime option
> > though, by just having a different set of dma_ops hooked in.
> >
>
> Is somebody currently working on it
Tuesday 19 May 2009 00:17:31 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> We are close to the point where we can make this a runtime option
> though, by just having a different set of dma_ops hooked in.
>
Is somebody currently working on it? If yes, where we can see
code ?
--
Best Regards.
Piotr Zięcik
___
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 08:00 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>
> All of this doesn't actually affect the driver code at all. It's all
> handled by the kernel and the DMA apis. What it does affect is
> multiplatform kernels. The DMA behaviour is set at compile time, not
> run time, depending on the se
2009/5/14 Piotr Zięcik :
> Thursday 07 May 2009 00:39:25 Grant Likely napisał(a):
>> >> 512x are enabled in the same kernel?
>> >
>> > Hm... both architectures look sufficiently different to me that I
>> > don't see sense in trying such a thing. Do you think that needs to be
>> > supported?
>>
>> Y
Thursday 07 May 2009 00:39:25 Grant Likely napisał(a):
> >> 512x are enabled in the same kernel?
> >
> > Hm... both architectures look sufficiently different to me that I
> > don't see sense in trying such a thing. Do you think that needs to be
> > supported?
>
> Yes! :-) It's not hard to do and
On Friday 08 May 2009 09:52:51 David Miller wrote:
> From: John Rigby
> Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 20:02:53 -0600
>
> > Also don't forget that the register map is the same on 512x, mx and
> > coldfire platforms but not on the other ppc platforms so if you want
> > to one binary to rule them all you wil
From: John Rigby
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 20:02:53 -0600
> Also don't forget that the register map is the same on 512x, mx and
> coldfire platforms but not on the other ppc platforms so if you want
> to one binary to rule them all you will need to have an offest table
> or some such.
I would sugges
Wolfgang,
Welcome to my world and why I gave up on this months ago.
Everyone else,
One thing to consider here is a rewrite with the goal of a new improved fec
driver that would work on both 5121 and the various mx platforms that also
have this same fec core.
Also don't forget that the register
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Grant,
>
> In message you
> wrote:
>>
>> > Agreed that it's ugly, but duplicatio9ng the code would have been even
>> > worse. I don't think that it has multiplatform - at least not as long
>> > as you don't ask for one image that runs o
On May 6, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Grant,
in message > you wrote:
...
#ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENET_HAS_FEC
+#ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENET_MPC5121_FEC
+{
+.compatible = "fsl,mpc5121-fec",
+.data = (void *)&fs_fec_ops,
+},
+#else
{
.compatible = "fsl,pq1-f
On Thursday 07 May 2009 00:29:59 Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Dear Grant,
> >
> > in message
> > you wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> > #ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENET_HAS_FEC
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENET_MPC5121_FEC
> >> > + {
> >> > + .compatible =
Dear Grant,
In message you
wrote:
>
> > Agreed that it's ugly, but duplicatio9ng the code would have been even
> > worse. I don't think that it has multiplatform - at least not as long
> > as you don't ask for one image that runs on 83xx and on 512x.
>
> Actually, I *am* asking for one image th
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Scott,
>
> in message <4a01f602.2010...@freescale.com> you wrote:
>>
>> All of the above is duplicative (with even the same names) of stuff in
>> asm/cpm.h. Beyond just the duplication, what happens if both CPM2 and
>
> OK, I can try to
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Grant,
>
> in message you
> wrote:
>>
> ...
>> > #ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENET_HAS_FEC
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENET_MPC5121_FEC
>> > + {
>> > + .compatible = "fsl,mpc5121-fec",
>> > + .data = (void *)&fs_fec_ops,
>> > + },
>>
Dear Grant,
in message you
wrote:
>
...
> > #ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENET_HAS_FEC
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENET_MPC5121_FEC
> > +{
> > +.compatible = "fsl,mpc5121-fec",
> > +.data = (void *)&fs_fec_ops,
> > +},
> > +#else
> >{
> >.compatible = "fsl,pq1-fec-enet",
> >
Dear Scott,
in message <4a01f602.2010...@freescale.com> you wrote:
>
> All of the above is duplicative (with even the same names) of stuff in
> asm/cpm.h. Beyond just the duplication, what happens if both CPM2 and
OK, I can try to reuse the definitions from that file.
> 512x are enabled in th
Dear David,
In message <20090506.134003.261424694.da...@davemloft.net> you wrote:
>
> Would you be offended if I tell you that this is a horrible patch
> submission?
>
> Your introductory email indicates 16 patches, yet the series indicates
> there were 12, and that intro email is only posted to
Grant Likely wrote:
#ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENET_HAS_FEC
+#ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENET_MPC5121_FEC
+ {
+ .compatible = "fsl,mpc5121-fec",
+ .data = (void *)&fs_fec_ops,
+ },
+#else
{
.compatible = "fsl,pq1-fec-enet",
.data = (void *)
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
+/*
+ * Define the buffer descriptor structure.
+ */
+typedef struct bufdesc {
+ ushort cbd_sc; /* Control and status info */
+ ushort cbd_datlen; /* Data length */
+ uintcbd_bufaddr;/* Buffer address */
+} c
Would you be offended if I tell you that this is a horrible patch
submission?
Your introductory email indicates 16 patches, yet the series indicates
there were 12, and that intro email is only posted to the linuxppc-dev
list for people to read. Nobody on netdev nor other interested
parties that
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> From: John Rigby
>
> Add support for MPC512x to fs_enet driver
>
> drivers/net/fs_enet/*
> Enable fs_enet driver to work 5121 FEC
> Enable it with CONFIG_FS_ENET_MPC5121_FEC
>
> Signed-off-by: John Rigby
> Signed-off-by: Pio
From: John Rigby
Add support for MPC512x to fs_enet driver
drivers/net/fs_enet/*
Enable fs_enet driver to work 5121 FEC
Enable it with CONFIG_FS_ENET_MPC5121_FEC
Signed-off-by: John Rigby
Signed-off-by: Piotr Ziecik
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk
Cc:
Cc: Grant Likely
Cc:
24 matches
Mail list logo
