On 10/18/2011 06:43 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
Robin,
Do you remember why we went with just 'fsl,p1010-flexcan' as the device
tree compatible? Do we feel the flex can on P1010 isn't the same as on
MPC5xxx? or the ARM SoCs?
The decision was due to the fact there is no true generic
Hi Kumar,
On 10/18/2011 07:44 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Aug 16, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
David,
The following set of patches have been reviewed by the above parties and
all comments have been integrated. Although the patches stray from the
drivers/net/can directory, the
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44:07AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Aug 16, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
David,
The following set of patches have been reviewed by the above parties and
all comments have been integrated. Although the patches stray from the
drivers/net/can
Robin,
Do you remember why we went with just 'fsl,p1010-flexcan' as the device tree
compatible? Do we feel the flex can on P1010 isn't the same as on MPC5xxx?
or the ARM SoCs?
The decision was due to the fact there is no true generic fsl.flexcan
chip free of any SOC implementation
On 10/18/2011 01:43 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
Thanks, I'll look into this internally at FSL. I think its confusing
as hell to have fsl,p1010-flexcan in an ARM .dts and don't think
any reasonable ARM customer of FSL would know to put a PPC SOC name
in their .dts. I'll ask the HW guys what's going
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:43:13AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
Robin,
Do you remember why we went with just 'fsl,p1010-flexcan' as the device
tree compatible? Do we feel the flex can on P1010 isn't the same as on
MPC5xxx? or the ARM SoCs?
The decision was due to the fact there is
On Aug 16, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
David,
The following set of patches have been reviewed by the above parties and
all comments have been integrated. Although the patches stray from the
drivers/net/can directory, the diversions are related to changes for
the flexcan driver.
From: Robin Holt h...@sgi.com
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:32:18 -0500
The following set of patches have been reviewed by the above parties and
all comments have been integrated. Although the patches stray from the
drivers/net/can directory, the diversions are related to changes for
the flexcan
David,
The following set of patches have been reviewed by the above parties and
all comments have been integrated. Although the patches stray from the
drivers/net/can directory, the diversions are related to changes for
the flexcan driver.
The patch set is based upon your net-next-2.6 tree's
