From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de (metis.ext.pengutronix.de [92.198.50.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3348B7D48 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:59:28 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:59:23 +0200 From: Wolfram Sang To: Roman Fietze Subject: Re: CAN Subsystem and MPC52xx onboard controller Message-ID: <20100610085923.GE5333@pengutronix.de> References: <201006101041.27926.roman.fietze@telemotive.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="J4XPiPrVK1ev6Sgr" In-Reply-To: <201006101041.27926.roman.fietze@telemotive.de> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --J4XPiPrVK1ev6Sgr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > And which one is "good" or "better" for CAN+MPC52xx if that's > different? The mainline kernel works fine here with Phytec based MPC5xxx-boards. Some custom boards, too. You probably already know that it is always best to stay as close to mainline as possible ;) Maybe just the lite-support is slightly bit-rotten? What kind of build-errors do you get with the mainline-kernel? Regards, Wolfram --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | --J4XPiPrVK1ev6Sgr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwQqWsACgkQD27XaX1/VRtHKwCeKjsWbF3Yyucj/umFoKmq/6NE c3QAoKvHXt881ybV5J+2Hz/nUtDw/vZO =2c9R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --J4XPiPrVK1ev6Sgr--