Hello On 2/28/19 1:41 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Hello Dan, > > Am 28.02.19 um 18:57 schrieb Dan Murphy: >> Wolfgang >> >> On 2/28/19 11:33 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>> Am 14.02.19 um 19:27 schrieb Dan Murphy: >>>> Migrate the m_can code to use the m_can_platform framework >>>> code. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@xxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> v5 - Updated copyright, change m_can_classdev to m_can_priv, removed extra >>>> KCONFIG flag - https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1033095/ >>>> >>>> drivers/net/can/m_can/Kconfig | 8 +- >>>> drivers/net/can/m_can/Makefile | 1 + >>>> drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c | 745 ++++++++++++++++----------------- >>>> 3 files changed, 367 insertions(+), 387 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/m_can/Kconfig b/drivers/net/can/m_can/Kconfig >>>> index 04f20dd39007..66e31022a5fa 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/can/m_can/Kconfig >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/m_can/Kconfig >>>> @@ -1,5 +1,11 @@ >>>> config CAN_M_CAN >>>> + tristate "Bosch M_CAN support" >>>> + ---help--- >>>> + Say Y here if you want to support for Bosch M_CAN controller. >>> >>> Typo? >>> >> >> Maybe like you pointed out to update the help. > > I was just not sure if it's correct English... but you know better! > I actually added some additional content explaining what the flag was for and remove the "to" >> >>>> + >>>> +config CAN_M_CAN_PLATFORM >>>> + tristate "Bosch M_CAN support for io-mapped devices" >>>> depends on HAS_IOMEM >>>> - tristate "Bosch M_CAN devices" >>>> + depends on CAN_M_CAN >>>> ---help--- >>>> Say Y here if you want to support for Bosch M_CAN controller. >>> >>> Please update the help. >> >> Ack >>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/m_can/Makefile b/drivers/net/can/m_can/Makefile >>>> index 8bbd7f24f5be..057bbcdb3c74 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/can/m_can/Makefile >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/m_can/Makefile >>>> @@ -3,3 +3,4 @@ >>>> # >>>> >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_CAN_M_CAN) += m_can.o >>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_CAN_M_CAN_PLATFORM) += m_can_platform.o >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c b/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c >>>> index 9b449400376b..2ceccb870557 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c > ... snip ... >>>> @@ -924,6 +885,9 @@ static irqreturn_t m_can_isr(int irq, void *dev_id) >>>> } >>>> } >>>> >>>> + if (priv->ops->clr_dev_interrupts) >>>> + priv->ops->clr_dev_interrupts(priv); >>> >>> post_irq _handler? >>> >> >> I can clear them on entry as well > > OK! > > ...snip... > >>>> - niso_timeout = readl_poll_timeout((priv->base + M_CAN_CCCR), cccr_poll, >>>> - (cccr_poll == cccr_reg), 0, 10); >>>> + for (i = 0; i <= 10; i++) { >>>> + cccr_poll = m_can_read(priv, M_CAN_CCCR); >>>> + if (cccr_poll == cccr_reg) >>>> + niso_timeout = 0; >>>> + } >>> >>> There is no break and delay in the loop? What was the reason why you >>> can't use readl_poll_timeout()? >>> >> >> OK a break if NISO is supported then and probably could add a 1us delay original code on >> line 1232 had no delay but timeout at 10us. >> >> readl_poll_timeout is for iomapped devices. How would this work for peripherial devices? > > Well, it takes much more time to read the register via SPI... maybe using > > if (priv->is_peripherial) ... > > to handle the different timings would make sense here. > We really should isolate IO access calls away from the framework and have the registrars perform all IO calls. It may be better to create a call back to check for NISO support but I would think only IO mapped code is the only special case. Also a call back may be a bit much since this NISO function is only called in setup which is a one and done function during registration. >>>> >>>> /* Clear NISO */ >>>> cccr_reg &= ~(CCCR_NISO); >>>> @@ -1242,107 +1210,95 @@ static bool m_can_niso_supported(const struct m_can_priv *priv) >>>> return !niso_timeout; >>>> } > ... snip... > >>>> -static netdev_tx_t m_can_start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, >>>> - struct net_device *dev) >>>> +static void m_can_tx_handler(struct m_can_priv *priv) >>>> { >>>> - struct m_can_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev); >>>> - struct canfd_frame *cf = (struct canfd_frame *)skb->data; >>>> + struct canfd_frame *cf = (struct canfd_frame *)priv->skb->data; >>>> + struct net_device *dev = priv->net; >>>> + struct sk_buff *skb = priv->skb; >>> >>> Maybe "tx_skb" is a clearer member name.. >> >> Again this was named skb to minimize deltas from original code. > > I mean "priv->tx_skb"! > Ack. Changed for clarity I guess your point was made in my own confusion (heh). Dan >> skb was passed into the start_xmit function and used throughout the function. >> >> Since there was little delta in this function I opt'd to keep the names as is. >> > > Wolfgang. > -- ------------------ Dan Murphy
