From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.sgi.com [192.48.179.30]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54CDDB70BC for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:30:32 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:30:27 -0500 From: Robin Holt To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 0/6] flexcan: Add support for powerpc flexcan (freescale p1010) Message-ID: <20111018123027.GD22814@sgi.com> References: <1313551944-28603-1-git-send-email-holt@sgi.com> <16FBAA47-5133-43A1-80CE-C6D63B79FB5D@kernel.crashing.org> <20111018094328.GC22814@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, U Bhaskar-B22300 , socketcan-core@lists.berlios.de, Robin Holt , PPC list , "David S. Miller" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:43:13AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > > >> Robin, > >> > >> Do you remember why we went with just 'fsl,p1010-flexcan' as the device tree compatible? Do we feel the flex can on P1010 isn't the same as on MPC5xxx? or the ARM SoCs? > > > > The decision was due to the fact there is no true "generic" fsl.flexcan > > chip free of any SOC implementation and therefore not something which > > could be separately defined. That decision was made by Grant Likely. > > I will inline that email below. > > > > Robin > > > Thanks, I'll look into this internally at FSL. I think its confusing as hell to have "fsl,p1010-flexcan" in an ARM .dts and don't think any reasonable ARM customer of FSL would know to put a PPC SOC name in their .dts. I'll ask the HW guys what's going on so we can come up with a bit more generic name so we don't have to constantly change this. Even if its just: Grants argument was that there should then be a fsl,zeba-flexcan which would define each arm based soc. The match string could be there and the devicetree binding would match on each equivalent. Robin > > fsl,ppc-flexcan & fsl,arm-flexcan. > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 09:13:50AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Robin Holt wrote: > >>> Grant, > >>> > >>> Earlier, you had asked for a more specific name for the compatible > >>> property of the Freescale flexcan device. I still have not gotten a > >>> more specific answer. Hopefully Marc can give you more details about > >>> the flexcan implementations. > >> > >> If there is no ip core version, then just stick with the > >> fsl,-flexcan name and drop "fsl,flexcan". Marketing may say > >> flexcan is flexcan, but hardware engineers like to change things. > >> Trying to be too generic in compatible values will just lead to > >> problems in the future. > > > > Thanks, > > Robin > > - k