From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Matthias_Wei=DFer?= <weisserm@arcor.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:20:03 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] CAN console
In-Reply-To: <200910260726.59949.vapier@gentoo.org>
References: <4AE55BB2.6090608@arcor.de> <200910260437.32577.vapier@gentoo.org>
	<4AE5834F.5040307@arcor.de> <200910260726.59949.vapier@gentoo.org>
Message-ID: <4AE593F3.3030608@arcor.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> you would rather write a driver that is specific to one CAN hardware ?  

In general? No, I wouldn't. I would use a given CAN driver framework 
where I put my CAN driver in.

In this specific case: I think I would, as there is currently no CAN 
framework available in u-boot.

Is there any chance that the stuff posted by miaofng will be available 
in u-boot-next?

> writing it to a common framework would allow every one with a CAN driver to 
> use it ...

Yes. I totally agree here. And if there is a chance that there will be a 
CAN framework in u-boot in not to far future I will write my stuff 
against that.

I think I am not deep enough in u-boot that I will be able to write such 
a framework by myself.

Ragards,
Matthias Wei?er