RFC/Commit: New ocp id for CANbus devs

RFC/Commit: New ocp id for CANbus devs

[Andrey Volkov]

Hi Paul,

Pls. commit this patch, its needed for MPC5200 Can

Regards
Andrey Volkov

Signed-off-by: Andrey Volkov <avolkov@varma-el.com>
--
ChangeSet@1.2159, 2005-03-09 15:05:37+03:00, avolkov@varma-el.com
   ocp_ids.h:
     New number for onboard CANbus devs.


  ocp_ids.h |    1 +
  1 files changed, 1 insertion(+)


diff -Nru a/include/asm-ppc/ocp_ids.h b/include/asm-ppc/ocp_ids.h
--- a/include/asm-ppc/ocp_ids.h	2005-03-09 15:07:51 +03:00
+++ b/include/asm-ppc/ocp_ids.h	2005-03-09 15:07:51 +03:00
@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@
  #define OCP_FUNC_RGMII		0x00D3
  #define OCP_FUNC_TAH		0x00D4
  #define OCP_FUNC_SEC2		0x00D5	/* Crypto/Security 2.0 */
+#define OCP_FUNC_CAN		0x00D6	/* CAN bus device */

  /* Network 0x0200 - 0x02FF */
  #define OCP_FUNC_EMAC		0x0200

Re: RFC/Commit: New ocp id for CANbus devs

[Kumar Gala]

Is this for 2.6?  If so, 5200 needs to be moved to using the new driver=20=

model and platform devices.  Take a look at support for MPC85xx or=20
marvell (mv64x60) as examples.

- kumar

On Mar 9, 2005, at 6:20 AM, Andrey Volkov wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> Pls. commit this patch, its needed for MPC5200 Can
>
> Regards
>  Andrey Volkov
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Volkov <avolkov@varma-el.com>
>  --
>  ChangeSet@1.2159, 2005-03-09 15:05:37+03:00, avolkov@varma-el.com
>  =A0=A0 ocp_ids.h:
>  =A0=A0=A0=A0 New number for onboard CANbus devs.
>
>
>
> =A0 ocp_ids.h |=A0=A0=A0 1 +
>  =A0 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
>
>
> diff -Nru a/include/asm-ppc/ocp_ids.h b/include/asm-ppc/ocp_ids.h
>  --- a/include/asm-ppc/ocp_ids.h 2005-03-09 15:07:51 +03:00
>  +++ b/include/asm-ppc/ocp_ids.h 2005-03-09 15:07:51 +03:00
>  @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@
>  =A0 #define OCP_FUNC_RGMII=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
0x00D3
>  =A0 #define OCP_FUNC_TAH=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 0x00D4
>  =A0 #define OCP_FUNC_SEC2 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 0x00D5=A0 /* =
Crypto/Security 2.0 */
>  +#define OCP_FUNC_CAN=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 0x00D6=A0 /* CAN =
bus device */
>
> =A0 /* Network 0x0200 - 0x02FF */
>  =A0 #define OCP_FUNC_EMAC =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 0x0200
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
>  Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded

Re: RFC/Commit: New ocp id for CANbus devs

[Andrey Volkov]

Hi Kumar:
> Is this for 2.6?  
Oh sorry, certainly for 2.6 (Sylvain's kernel more precisely).
But since, Sylvain not maintainer of ocp_ids.h, so I send
this patch to Paul (who create it, am I right?).

> If so, 5200 needs to be moved to using the new driver 
> model and platform devices.  Take a look at support for MPC85xx or 
> marvell (mv64x60) as examples.
> 
> - kumar
Kumar, please, more cleanly, what did you want to say? If you told about
board_ocp[] in lite5200.c (platform specific). Then yes, I use it, but 
not mpc5200.c

--
Andrey

> 
> On Mar 9, 2005, at 6:20 AM, Andrey Volkov wrote:
> 
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Pls. commit this patch, its needed for MPC5200 Can
>>
>> Regards
>>  Andrey Volkov
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Volkov <avolkov@varma-el.com>
>>  --
>>  ChangeSet@1.2159, 2005-03-09 15:05:37+03:00, avolkov@varma-el.com
>>     ocp_ids.h:
>>       New number for onboard CANbus devs.
>>
>>
>>
>>   ocp_ids.h |    1 +
>>    1 files changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>>
>>
>> diff -Nru a/include/asm-ppc/ocp_ids.h b/include/asm-ppc/ocp_ids.h
>>  --- a/include/asm-ppc/ocp_ids.h 2005-03-09 15:07:51 +03:00
>>  +++ b/include/asm-ppc/ocp_ids.h 2005-03-09 15:07:51 +03:00
>>  @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@
>>    #define OCP_FUNC_RGMII                0x00D3
>>    #define OCP_FUNC_TAH          0x00D4
>>    #define OCP_FUNC_SEC2         0x00D5  /* Crypto/Security 2.0 */
>>  +#define OCP_FUNC_CAN           0x00D6  /* CAN bus device */
>>
>>   /* Network 0x0200 - 0x02FF */
>>    #define OCP_FUNC_EMAC         0x0200
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
>>  Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
>> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
> 
> 
> 

Re: RFC/Commit: New ocp id for CANbus devs

[Sylvain Munaut]

Andrey Volkov wrote:

> Hi Kumar:
>
>> Is this for 2.6?  
>
> Oh sorry, certainly for 2.6 (Sylvain's kernel more precisely).
> But since, Sylvain not maintainer of ocp_ids.h, so I send
> this patch to Paul (who create it, am I right?).
>
>> If so, 5200 needs to be moved to using the new driver model and 
>> platform devices.  Take a look at support for MPC85xx or marvell 
>> (mv64x60) as examples.
>>
>> - kumar
>
> Kumar, please, more cleanly, what did you want to say? If you told about
> board_ocp[] in lite5200.c (platform specific). Then yes, I use it, but 
> not mpc5200.c
>
No, what he said is that MPC5200 needs to be moved to use the platform 
bus driver model.

I'll post the patch doing just that on Monday along with PCI and sparse 
clean-ups. (Unless something goes wrong ...)


    Sylvain

Re: RFC/Commit: New ocp id for CANbus devs

[Kumar Gala]

Sylvain,

Thanks, the i2c driver that you used on the OCP side should work for=20
you on the platform device side as well.  Also, do you plan on using=20
the ppc_sys stuff for this?  Hopefully yes.

- kumar

On Mar 9, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Sylvain Munaut wrote:

> Andrey Volkov wrote:
>
> > Hi Kumar:
>  >
>  >> Is this for 2.6?=A0
> >
>  > Oh sorry, certainly for 2.6 (Sylvain's kernel more precisely).
>  > But since, Sylvain not maintainer of ocp_ids.h, so I send
>  > this patch to Paul (who create it, am I right?).
>  >
>  >> If so, 5200 needs to be moved to using the new driver model and
> >> platform devices.=A0 Take a look at support for MPC85xx or marvell
> >> (mv64x60) as examples.
>  >>
>  >> - kumar
>  >
>  > Kumar, please, more cleanly, what did you want to say? If you told=20=

> about
>  > board_ocp[] in lite5200.c (platform specific). Then yes, I use it,=20=

> but
> > not mpc5200.c
>  >
>  No, what he said is that MPC5200 needs to be moved to use the =
platform
> bus driver model.
>
> I'll post the patch doing just that on Monday along with PCI and =
sparse
> clean-ups. (Unless something goes wrong ...)
>
>
>
> =A0=A0=A0 Sylvain

Re: RFC/Commit: New ocp id for CANbus devs

[Andrey Volkov]

Sylvain Munaut wrote:
> 
>> Sylvain, but what I wish now - only single number
>> (until driver will done).
> 
> If you only need a temporary ocp ID, just fix it youself in your local 
> tree, no need to try to push that upstream.

I already use it as temp, but I don't want pitfalls in future (when
smb. take this number).

Also, since CAN ocp present not only in MPC5200, but, AFAIK, in another 
chips too, IMHO, it must be well known constant id.

Regards
Andrey

Re: RFC/Commit: New ocp id for CANbus devs

[Kumar Gala]

I would assume you plan on moving your driver over to the driver model 
which will make all of this moot.

So I think Sylvain's suggestion of allocating a number for the time 
being makes the most sense until we get 52xx convert over to platform 
devices.

- kumar

On Mar 10, 2005, at 12:57 AM, Andrey Volkov wrote:

> Sylvain Munaut wrote:
>  >
> >> Sylvain, but what I wish now - only single number
>  >> (until driver will done).
>  >
> > If you only need a temporary ocp ID, just fix it youself in your 
> local
> > tree, no need to try to push that upstream.
>
> I already use it as temp, but I don't want pitfalls in future (when
>  smb. take this number).
>
> Also, since CAN ocp present not only in MPC5200, but, AFAIK, in another
> chips too, IMHO, it must be well known constant id.
>
> Regards
>  Andrey

Re: RFC/Commit: New ocp id for CANbus devs

[Andrey Volkov]

Ok, accepted, I'll be delayed until driver will be done.

Andrey

Kumar Gala wrote:
> I would assume you plan on moving your driver over to the driver model 
> which will make all of this moot.
> 
> So I think Sylvain's suggestion of allocating a number for the time 
> being makes the most sense until we get 52xx convert over to platform 
> devices.
> 
> - kumar
> 
> On Mar 10, 2005, at 12:57 AM, Andrey Volkov wrote:
> 
>> Sylvain Munaut wrote:
>>  >
>> >> Sylvain, but what I wish now - only single number
>>  >> (until driver will done).
>>  >
>> > If you only need a temporary ocp ID, just fix it youself in your local
>> > tree, no need to try to push that upstream.
>>
>> I already use it as temp, but I don't want pitfalls in future (when
>>  smb. take this number).
>>
>> Also, since CAN ocp present not only in MPC5200, but, AFAIK, in another
>> chips too, IMHO, it must be well known constant id.
>>
>> Regards
>>  Andrey
> 
> 
>