Matthias Fuchs wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, > > of course I can think of situations where some simple CAN mechanism > might be helpful (e.g. simple hardware testing). > > But do we really need this inside a bootloader? Surely not > for a production build. But please keep on hacking! > > On Monday 02 November 2009 13:50, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> Matthias Fuchs wrote: >>> Hi Wolfgang, >>> >>> this patch conflicts with my simple SJA header posted some days ago >>> >>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-October/063097.html >>> >>> together with a fix for two of our boards - which has not much >>> to do with CAN. WD asked me to use a C struct to access the SJA1000. >>> >>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-October/062902.html >>> >>> So where does this bring us? Either we want to use C structs for everything >>> or decide it from patch to patch :-( >> Then it should be changed, of course. This patch is far from being >> accepted and for the moment it's an implementation detail. I'm >> especially interested to hear if such a generic CAN interface would >> serve your purposes as well, as you require access to the SJA1000 somehow. > > I just need to bit bang around in the OCR register. So no need for a full > blown > and flash consuming CAN implementation. Of course I could life with your > register access style. Especially because it makes the code more common with > Socket-CAN files which prevents us from rewriting fully functional code ;-)
Well, I think Wolfgang will tell me to use structs sooner than later. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
