Hi Chris,
On 6 June 2014 16:35, Chris Packham judge.packham@gmail.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Chris Packham judge.packham@gmail.com
On 07/06/14 08:48, Simon Glass wrote:> Hi Chris,
On 5 June 2014 21:24, Chris Packham judge.packham@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
(Joe, Simon, I'm not sure if this counts as "networking" or "driver model" but figured it was close enough to warrant an Cc).
We're looking at a new board design and are planning on using a BCM5718 to provide a couple of Ethernet ports. The chipset is supported in Linux using the tg3.c driver. I was planning on creating an equivalent driver in u-boot using e1000.c as a guide and probably borrowing heavily from the Linux driver.
Is anyone else actively looking at Broadcom based chipset/NICs? Any tips as for where to start or pitfalls to expect?
I'm not aware of anything myself, but it sounds like a good idea. If you feel able to convert 'eth' over to driver model that would be great too. There are only a small number of operations.
Regards, Simon
Yeah it doesn't look as thought it'd be too hard to do 'eth' (or is it 'netdev'?). I think I'll concentrate on doing the BCM5718 driver the current way first then have a think about converting 'eth'.
I think it is actually struct eth_device that you need to do, in terms of writing the uclass. Also you can follow the GPIO approach of using CONFIG_DM_ETH to control whether driver model is used for networking (which it would be for any board using your driver).
In the meantime I spotted a few typos when reading the driver-model docs.
Thanks, will add these.
doc/driver-model/README.txt | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/driver-model/README.txt b/doc/driver-model/README.txt index dcecb9a..a5035be 100644 --- a/doc/driver-model/README.txt +++ b/doc/driver-model/README.txt @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Terminology
Uclass - a group of devices which operate in the same way. A uclass provides
a way of accessing invidual devices within the group, but always
a way of accessing individual devices within the group, but always using the same interface. For example a GPIO uclass provides operations for get/set value. An I2C uclass may have 10 I2C ports, 4 with one driver, and 6 with another.@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ What is going on?
Let's start at the top. The demo command is in common/cmd_demo.c. It does -the usual command procesing and then: +the usual command processing and then:
struct udevice *demo_dev;@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ The data can be interpreted by the drivers however they like - it is basically a communication scheme between the board-specific code and the generic drivers, which are intended to work on any board.
-Drivers can acceess their data via dev->info->platdata. Here is +Drivers can access their data via dev->info->platdata. Here is the declaration for the platform data, which would normally appear in the board file.
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ method reads the information out of the device tree and puts it in dev->platdata. Then the probe method is called to set up the device.
Note that both methods are optional. If you provide an ofdata_to_platdata -method then it wlil be called first (after bind). If you provide a probe +method then it will be called first (after bind). If you provide a probe method it will be called next.
If you don't want to have the platdata automatically allocated then you @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ Changes since v1 For the record, this implementation uses a very similar approach to the original patches, but makes at least the following changes:
-- Tried to agressively remove boilerplate, so that for most drivers there +- Tried to aggressively remove boilerplate, so that for most drivers there is little or no 'driver model' code to write.
- Moved some data from code into data structure - e.g. store a pointer to
the driver operations structure in the driver, rather than passing it
2.0.0.153.g79dcccc
Regards, Simon