Lothar Wa?mann wrote:

Hi,

Shawn Guo writes:
  

quoted

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 02:07:57PM +0200, Lothar Wa?mann wrote:
    

quoted

Hi,

Shawn Guo writes:
      

quoted

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 01:29:19PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
        

quoted

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.

    

The 'I' in 'IC' does not stand for 'intelligent', but for
'integrated'. ;)
A can transceiver is usually merely a switchable buffer. There are no
registers to configure it or an internal processor that does some
magic.

  

Sorry for reply late, in my first patch, i chose "phy" instead of "xcvr" 
because the MC33902 datasheet tell me it is a "high speed CAN physical 
interface", and it includes "an internal 5.0 V supply for the CAN bus 
transceiver".

And from the diagram in the page 1 of the MC33902 datasheet, the MC33902 
includes bus xcvr, i/o control logic, power supply and external 
regulator control logic. As a result i decided to use phy in the driver.

Regards,
Hui.

Lothar Wa?mann