RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] can: flexcan: adding platform specific details for LS1021A - ZHU Yi (ST-FIR/ENG1-Zhu)

From: "ZHU Yi (ST-FIR/ENG1-Zhu)" <Yi.Zhu5@cn.bosch.com>
To: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
	Pankaj Bansal <pankaj.bansal@nxp.com>,
	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>,
	"linux-can@vger.kernel.org" <linux-can@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Varun Sethi <V.Sethi@nxp.com>,
	Poonam Aggrwal <poonam.aggrwal@nxp.com>,
	Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@freescale.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] can: flexcan: adding platform specific details for LS1021A
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 02:56:57 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3e201945af364c5a8a92dd6a931f4448@SGPMBX1017.APAC.bosch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <be8f51ff-8775-fe03-d299-2dc1f963ebcc@pengutronix.de>

Hello Marc,

>From: Marc Kleine-Budde [mailto:mkl@pengutronix.de]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:44 PM
>
> [...]
>> I'm afraid so far no known flexcan core supports it.
>
>Should we update the table and add a "IRQ Err Passive" no for all cores?
By look into the reference manual of MX25[1], MX35[2] and VF610[3],
it turns out that none of them support the error passive interrupt.
So we should update the "IRQ Err Passive" to no for all cores.

Interestingly, seems the new RM of MX25 (Rev.2) and MX35 (Rev.3)
states that both core have the [TR]WRN_INT connected, so I guess the
no in that column were added for the legacy core. However, as the
driver also needs to work with the legacy core, and they share the
same devtype_data as p1010, so I think we should leave it as it is.

>
>>  * Below is some version info we got:
>>  *    SOC   Version   IP-Version  Glitch- [TR]WRN_INT IRQ Err Memory err RTR re-
>>  *                                Filter? connected?  Passive detection  ception in MB
>>  *   MX25  FlexCAN2  03.00.00.00     no        no         ?       no        no
>>  *   MX28  FlexCAN2  03.00.04.00    yes       yes        no       no        no
>>  *   MX35  FlexCAN2  03.00.00.00     no        no         ?       no        no
>>  *   MX53  FlexCAN2  03.00.00.00    yes        no        no       no        no
>>  *   MX6s  FlexCAN3  10.00.12.00    yes       yes        no       no       yes
>>  *   VF610 FlexCAN3  ?               no       yes         ?      yes       yes?
>
>And does it make sense to add "FLEXCAN_QUIRK_BROKEN_PERR_STATE" to the
>vf610, too?
I think vf610 will need this quirk to report correct state transitions.
The reason last time we do not touch this is because neither Wolfgang
nor I had access to vf610, so we can only test with MX28, MX53 and MX6.
We thought someone will speak out if they meet problems with this core,
and then they can help to fix and test it.

@Marc, @Wolfgang,
What do you think? Or shall we fix first and then wait?

@Pankaj, as you are currently working on patch this driver, is it
possible that you can help to create patch for the table and/or the
PERR_STATE quirk fix for vf610 in case required? Thanks!

Best regards
Yi

[1] https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/reference-manual/IMX25RM.pdf
[2] https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/reference-manual/IMX35RM.pdf
[3] https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/reference-manual/VFXXXRM.pdf