Wolfgang On 10/05/2018 12:56 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Hello Dan, > > Am 04.10.2018 um 22:26 schrieb Dan Murphy: >> Wolfgang >> >> On 09/26/2018 12:54 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I wonder why you do not extend the existing MCAN driver by implementing >>> an interface to access the hardware. Would that be feasible? >>> >> >> I have created a m_can_core code base that can be used by other hardware that >> have special needs. >> >> So I have created the m_can_core, m_can and the tcan4x5x drivers. > > Great, I still think it's a good idea to have just one "m_can" driver. The m_can and tcan4x5x provide the device level implementations. The m_can_core deals specifically with handling of the m_can IP and protocol. > >> I can RFC the code to see if this is what is expected. >> It is not 100% working but it is close enough for a directional call. > > That would be nice! Most of the SPI accesses are pure register accesses. > A few read/write more bytes at a time (for data, etc.) but that could be > handled by appropriate interface functions. One general problem is that > SPI accesses are not possible from interrupt context requiring threads > or work queues. Also NAPI is usually not used. > > Other opinions? agreed. Is there any issue with moving the request_irq to a threaded_irq? Not sure how that would affect the timing. > > Wolfgang. > > PS: I have added Mario to the CC. Maybe he could test a common driver on > his M_CAN hardware. > I found that our am5/dra76 EVM also uses this IP stack. So I am working with our experts there to test and review the code as well. Dan -- ------------------ Dan Murphy
