Re: [PATCH] net, can, ti_hecc: add DT support for the ti,hecc controller

From: Rob Herring
Date: Wed Oct 21 2015 - 21:31:24 EST

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/19/2015 08:39 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
>> add DT support for the ti hecc controller, used on
>> am3517 SoCs.
>
> A similar patch was posted a few days ago, see
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.can/8616 and my comments.

I don't seem to have that in my inbox. Please send DT bindings to the
DT list and maintainers.

Rob

>
> Please coordinate with Anton Glukhov (Cc'ed) and/or pick up his patches
> as they are in better shape.
>
> Marc
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher <hs@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> .../devicetree/bindings/net/can/ti_hecc-can.txt | 20 ++++++++++
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/am3517.dtsi | 13 +++++++
>> drivers/net/can/ti_hecc.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 3 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/ti_hecc-can.txt
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/ti_hecc-can.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/ti_hecc-can.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..09fab59
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/ti_hecc-can.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
>> +* TI HECC CAN *
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> + - compatible: Should be "ti,hecc"
>
> We usually put the name of the first SoC this IP core appears in to the
> compatible.
>
>> + - reg: Should contain CAN controller registers location and length
>> + - interrupts: Should contain IRQ line for the CAN controller
>
> I'm missing the description of the ti,* properties. I think they are
> required, too. Although the code doesn't enforce it.
>
>> +
>> +Example:
>> +
>> + can0: hecc@5c050000 {
>> + compatible = "ti,hecc";
>> + reg = <0x5c050000 0x4000>;
>> + interrupts = <24>;
>> + ti,hecc_scc_offset = <0>;
>> + ti,hecc_scc_ram_offset = <0x3000>;
>> + ti,hecc_ram_offset = <0x3000>;
>> + ti,hecc_mbx_offset = <0x2000>;
>> + ti,hecc_int_line = <0>;
>> + ti,hecc_version = <1>;
>
> Versioning in the OF world is done via the compatible. Are the offsets a
> per SoC parameter? I'm not sure if it's better to put
> the offsets into the driver.
>
>> + };
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am3517.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/am3517.dtsi
>> index 5e3f5e8..47bc429 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am3517.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/am3517.dtsi
>> @@ -25,6 +25,19 @@
>> interrupt-names = "mc";
>> };
>>
>> + can0: hecc@5c050000 {
>> + compatible = "ti,hecc";
>> + reg = <0x5c050000 0x4000>;
>> + interrupts = <24>;
>> + ti,hecc_scc_offset = <0>;
>> + ti,hecc_scc_ram_offset = <0x3000>;
>> + ti,hecc_ram_offset = <0x3000>;
>> + ti,hecc_mbx_offset = <0x2000>;
>> + ti,hecc_int_line = <0>;
>> + ti,hecc_version = <1>;
>> + status = "disabled";
>> + };
>> +
>> davinci_emac: ethernet@0x5c000000 {
>> compatible = "ti,am3517-emac";
>> ti,hwmods = "davinci_emac";
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/ti_hecc.c b/drivers/net/can/ti_hecc.c
>> index c08e8ea..f1705d5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/ti_hecc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/ti_hecc.c
>> @@ -875,16 +875,56 @@ static const struct net_device_ops ti_hecc_netdev_ops = {
>> .ndo_change_mtu = can_change_mtu,
>> };
>>
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_OF)
>> +static const struct of_device_id ti_hecc_can_dt_ids[] = {
>> + {
>> + .compatible = "ti,hecc",
>> + }, {
>> + /* sentinel */
>> + }
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ti_hecc_can_dt_ids);
>> +#endif
>
> Please remove the ifdef, use __maybe_unused instead.
>
>> +
>> +static const struct ti_hecc_platform_data
>> +*ti_hecc_can_get_driver_data(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> + if (pdev->dev.of_node) {
>> + struct ti_hecc_platform_data *data;
>> + struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
>> +
>> + data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!data)
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,hecc_scc_offset",
>> + &data->scc_hecc_offset);
>> + of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,hecc_scc_ram_offset",
>> + &data->scc_ram_offset);
>> + of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,hecc_ram_offset",
>> + &data->hecc_ram_offset);
>> + of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,hecc_mbx_offset",
>> + &data->mbx_offset);
>> + of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,hecc_int_line",
>> + &data->int_line);
>> + of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,hecc_version",
>> + &data->version);
>
> I'm missing error handling here.
>
>> + return data;
>> + }
>> + return (const struct ti_hecc_platform_data *)
>> + dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
>
> Is this cast needed?
>
>> +}
>> +
>> static int ti_hecc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> struct net_device *ndev = (struct net_device *)0;
>> struct ti_hecc_priv *priv;
>> - struct ti_hecc_platform_data *pdata;
>> + const struct ti_hecc_platform_data *pdata;
>> struct resource *mem, *irq;
>> void __iomem *addr;
>> int err = -ENODEV;
>>
>> - pdata = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
>> + pdata = ti_hecc_can_get_driver_data(pdev);
>> if (!pdata) {
>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "No platform data\n");
>> goto probe_exit;
>> @@ -1040,6 +1080,7 @@ static int ti_hecc_resume(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> static struct platform_driver ti_hecc_driver = {
>> .driver = {
>> .name = DRV_NAME,
>> + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(ti_hecc_can_dt_ids),
>> },
>> .probe = ti_hecc_probe,
>> .remove = ti_hecc_remove,
>>
>
> Marc
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
> Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
> Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/