From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 0/6] flexcan: Add support for powerpc flexcan (freescale p1010) 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Grant Likely , netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, U Bhaskar-B22300 , socketcan-core-0fE9KPoRgkgATYTw5x5z8w@public.gmane.org, Marc Kleine-Budde , PPC list , "David S. Miller" , Wolfgang Grandegger To: Robin Holt Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20111018094328.GC22814-sJ/iWh9BUns@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: socketcan-core-bounces-0fE9KPoRgkgATYTw5x5z8w@public.gmane.org Errors-To: socketcan-core-bounces-0fE9KPoRgkgATYTw5x5z8w@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org >> 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: 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