> >>
> >> I urge you to have a closer look at ral(4) and it's way of handling
> >> RT2500 and RT2600 specific differences. In it's simplest form you can
> >> copy the OpenBSD code 1:1 without any functional changes, heck, it's
> >> the source of this driver anyway.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bernhard
>
> I've look on difference between RT2[56]00 and RT2860 some time ago, but done
>it again, and found that we can only place
> RT2860/RT3090 support under same name (ral), but hardware have too big
>difference. And in case I do this patch for RT3052F SoC,
> when I placing RT2860 into ral, i get completely different driver (because
> SoC
>don't use PCI interface).
>
>
> So can You (or someone else) hint me, how to done this?
>
> switch (what to do) {
> case 'Remake run to support PCI and SoC interface':
> Much work to make driver bus independent;
> case 'Port OpenBSD one':
> driver do not support SoC (SoC device don't have MCU);
> break;
> case 'Place my RT2860 under dev/ral':
> different device in same driver;
> break;
> }
>
I'd say porting OpenBSD's is smarter move than remaking run(4).
OpenBSD's ral(4) supports RT2800/RT3090,
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?apropos=0&sektion=4&query=ral&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format=html
so ported code should nicely fit into FreeBSD's sys/dev/ral/ folder.
It seems pci related code is separated,
http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/dev/ral/
driver - pci code might nicely fit SoC code too.
FreeBSD's if_runreg.h is the same as OpenBSD's if_rt2860reg.h. (Though, I have
been ignoring syncing changes related to RT3090. run(4) doesn't supports it.)
In
fact, OpenBSD doesn't have if_runreg.h, instead they share if_rt2860reg.h. We
can separate, but >90% of them would be identical.
I don't have h/w but I might be able help you out non-SoC portion of code.
AK
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
