Hi Joakim,
Am 2020-02-14 02:55, schrieb Joakim Zhang:
Hi Michal,
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2020年2月14日 3:20
To: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@xxxxxxx>; wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-can@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Pankaj Bansal
<pankaj.bansal@xxxxxxx>; Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] can: flexcan: add CAN FD support for NXP
Flexcan
Hi,
>>> Are you prepared to add back these patches as they are necessary for
>>> Flexcan CAN FD? And this Flexcan CAN FD patch set is based on these
>>> patches.
>>
>> Yes, these patches will be added back.
>
>I've cleaned up the first patch a bit, and pushed everything to the
>testing branch. Can you give it a test.
What happend to that branch? FWIW I've just tried the patches on a
custom
board with a LS1028A SoC. Both CAN and CAN-FD are working. I've tested
against a Peaktech USB CAN adapter. I'd love to see these patches
upstream,
because our board also offers CAN and basic support for it just made
it
upstream [1].
The FlexCAN CAN FD related patches have stayed in
linux-can-next/flexcan branch for a long time, I still don't know why
Marc doesn't merge them into Linux mainline.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mkl/linux-can-next.git/tree/?h=flexcan
Also must hope that this patch set can be upstreamed soon. :-)
I've took them from this branch and applied them to the latest linux
master.
Thus,
Tested-by: Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
If these patches are upstream, only the device tree nodes seems to be
missing.
I don't know what has happened to [2]. But the patch doesn't seem to
be
necessary.
Yes, this patch is unnecessary. I have NACKed this patch for that,
according to FlexCAN Integrated Guide, CTRL1[CLKSRC]=0 select
oscillator clock and CTRL1[CLKSRC]=1 select peripheral clock.
But it is actually decided by SoC integration, for i.MX, the design is
different.
ok thanks for clarifying.
I have not upstream i.MX FlexCAN device tree nodes, since it's
dependency have not upstreamed yet.
Pankaj already send a patch to add the device node to the LS1028A [3].
Thats basically the same I've used, only that mine didn't had the
"fsl,ls1028ar1-flexcan" compatiblity string, but only the
"lx2160ar1-flexcan"
which is the correct way to use it, right?
You can see below table from FlexCAN driver, "fsl,lx2160ar1-flexcan"
supports CAN FD, you can use this compatible string.
correct. I've already a patch that does exactly this ;) Who would take
the
patch for adding the LS1028A can device tree nodes to ls1028a.dtsi? You
or
Shawn Guo?
static const struct of_device_id flexcan_of_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "fsl,imx8qm-flexcan", .data =
&fsl_imx8qm_devtype_data, },
{ .compatible = "fsl,imx6q-flexcan", .data = &fsl_imx6q_devtype_data,
},
{ .compatible = "fsl,imx28-flexcan", .data = &fsl_imx28_devtype_data,
},
{ .compatible = "fsl,imx53-flexcan", .data = &fsl_imx25_devtype_data,
},
{ .compatible = "fsl,imx35-flexcan", .data = &fsl_imx25_devtype_data,
},
{ .compatible = "fsl,imx25-flexcan", .data = &fsl_imx25_devtype_data,
},
{ .compatible = "fsl,p1010-flexcan", .data = &fsl_p1010_devtype_data,
},
{ .compatible = "fsl,vf610-flexcan", .data = &fsl_vf610_devtype_data,
},
{ .compatible = "fsl,ls1021ar2-flexcan", .data =
&fsl_ls1021a_r2_devtype_data, },
{ .compatible = "fsl,lx2160ar1-flexcan", .data =
&fsl_lx2160a_r1_devtype_data, },
{ /* sentinel */ },
};
-michael
