Re: [RFC 2/4] [flexcan] Introduce a flexcan_clk set of functions.

[Robin Holt <holt-sJ/iWh9BUns@public.gmane.org>]

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 02:29:46PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 08/05/2011 01:36 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> > I implemented the coding style changes below (Sorry I missed the two
> > the first time).
> 
> np :)
> 
> > As for a better implementation, I guess I would need to understand what
> > is being attempted here.  I only marginally understand the flexcan
> > hardware on the Freescale P1010 and certainly am clueless about arm
> > implementations of flexcan.  I just skimmed over freescale's site
> 
> The arm side is working already :)
> However we just support the busclock on ARM [1]. For the first shot
> stick to that clock, too.
> 
> [1] (http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v3.0/drivers/net/can/flexcan.c#L857)
> 
> > and it looks like I would be looking at their i.MX25, i.MX28, i.MX35,
> > and i.MX53 family of processors.  I will attempt to find some useful
> > documentation of those and look at the kernel sources for what the clk_*
> > functions are trying to accomplish.
> > 
> > I _THINK_ I understand.  It looks like I could implement this as a powerpc
> > p1010 specific thing and get the same effect without impacting flexcan.c.
> > I also think I understand that the i.MX25 family of processors do
> > essentially the same thing the p1010 is doing for determining the
> > clock rate.
> 
> It seems that arch/powerpc/platforms/512x/clock.c implements a clock
> interface. I think the p1010 should implement something similar. (Note:
> I'm not a ppc guy :)
> 
> I'm looking forward for new patches.

I agree.  I think I will have that implemented shortly after I get to the
office (about an hour for drive, etc).  I think I am going to implement
a simple match on the dev_id of flexcan.0 or flexcan.1 and otherwise
return failure.

I also looked at implementing the CLOCKDEV_LOOKUP but think that is
going to drive me to drink.

Thanks,
Robin