From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: shawn.guo@linaro.org (Shawn Guo)
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:13:04 +0800
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] net: flexcan: add transceiver switch gpios support
In-Reply-To: <20460.18717.17688.965250@ipc1.ka-ro>
References: <1340853701-4488-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org>
 <1340853701-4488-3-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org>
 <4FEC329C.7070004@pengutronix.de>
 <20120628112111.GC22990@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
 <4FEC400F.8010506@pengutronix.de>
 <20120628114108.GD22990@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
 <20460.18717.17688.965250@ipc1.ka-ro>
Message-ID: <20120628121302.GI22990@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 02:07:57PM +0200, Lothar Wa?mann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Shawn Guo writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 01:29:19PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> > > I mean which name is more precise, do these gpio enable/standy a "phy"
> > > or a "transceiver". For example:
> > > http://www.nxp.com/documents/application_note/AN00094.pdf, this document
> > > says: TJA1041/1041A high speed CAN transceiver.
> > > 
> > Isn't term "phy" (physical interface) generally meant to be the same
> > thing as "transceiver"?  I just happened to like the shorter one as
> > what Hui did in his patch.
> > 
> > But it does not really matter to me, will change the name since you
> > care about it.
> > 
> A transceiver is just a dumb piece of hardware, while a PHY contains
> some intelligence of its own.
> 
Then, it sounds more like a PHY than transceiver, since it's an IC
chip with some control over it.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn