From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: xilinx CAN controller support. Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:12:45 +0100 Message-ID: <201402111512.45678.arnd@arndb.de> References: <6c2bcce0-9897-4d1d-a8b9-47924e40f73c@VA3EHSMHS008.ehs.local> <52FA1910.2060101@pengutronix.de> <52FA2419.70102@monstr.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:60347 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750984AbaBKOMu (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:12:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: <52FA2419.70102@monstr.eu> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: monstr@monstr.eu Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde , Michal Simek , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao , "wg@grandegger.com" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , "linux-can@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" On Tuesday 11 February 2014, Michal Simek wrote: > >> The only remaining question is if we should create generic DT binding > >> for fifo depth. Arnd, Rob: Any opinion about it? > >> Definitely will be worth to have one generic binding if this is generic feature. > >> But if this is just specific feature for us then current properties should > >> be fine. > >> > >> In general all these xlnx,XXX properties just reflect all configurable options > >> which you can setup in design tool which means that provide full hw description > >> with all variants and they are automatically generated from tools. > >> > >> Please let me know what you think. > > > > I like: > > > > rx-fifo-depth > > tx-fifo-depth > > No problem with that. Let Kedar to fix it according this and he will send v2 with this. > Sounds reasonable to me too. Arnd