From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B7A0B71BB for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:43:29 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 0/6] flexcan: Add support for powerpc flexcan (freescale p1010) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Kumar Gala In-Reply-To: <20111018094328.GC22814@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:43:13 -0500 Message-Id: References: <1313551944-28603-1-git-send-email-holt@sgi.com> <16FBAA47-5133-43A1-80CE-C6D63B79FB5D@kernel.crashing.org> <20111018094328.GC22814@sgi.com> To: Robin Holt Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, U Bhaskar-B22300 , socketcan-core@lists.berlios.de, PPC list , "David S. Miller" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >> Robin, >>=20 >> 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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: 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, >>>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > Thanks, > Robin - k=