From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com (Alexander Stein) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:57:04 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 1/1] ARM: at91/dt: sam9x5: Add CAN device nodes In-Reply-To: <5432B637.1060200@atmel.com> References: <1412605640-29472-1-git-send-email-alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com> <5432B637.1060200@atmel.com> Message-ID: <1553953.Bxvx42RTxh@ws-stein> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Jean, On Monday 06 October 2014 17:33:11, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > On 06/10/2014 16:27, Alexander Stein : > > Add the missing CAN devices node including their pin muxing and clocks. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein > > Acked-by: Alexandre Belloni > > --- > > Changes in v3: > > * Match the pin name to the ones in the datasheet. > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5.dtsi | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Alexander, > > In fact, we already have a placeholder for these nodes: > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5_can.dtsi > > The file is only included in SoC device trees which actually contain > this peripheral: at91sam9x25 and at91sam9x35 (and not the other variants > of this family). Actually, I can't find anyone including this :-/ If they would I guess I should have hit an error for duplicated labels. Is this a mistake no-one includes at91sam9x5_can.dtsi? > So, can you please move this addition above into the > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5_can.dtsi file? Can you confirm that both (at91sam9x25 and at91sam9x35) have identical peripheral addresses, irq and pinmuxing? Best regards, Alexander -- Dipl.-Inf. Alexander Stein SYS TEC electronic GmbH Am Windrad 2 08468 Heinsdorfergrund Tel.: 03765 38600-1156 Fax: 03765 38600-4100 Email: alexander.stein at systec-electronic.com Website: www.systec-electronic.com Managing Director: Dipl.-Phys. Siegmar Schmidt Commercial registry: Amtsgericht Chemnitz, HRB 28082