On 07/02/2014 07:54 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:

I'm not really familiar with the naming concept in device trees.

What is your opinion about the remarks below?

The entries in the DT, at least on freescale baords, follow the naming
scheme of the reference manual. E.g. on the mx25 it's can1 and can2:

    can1: can@43f88000 { ... }
    can2: can@43f8c000 { ... }

And on the mx28, its:

    can0: can@80032000 { ... }
    can1: can@80034000 { ... }

Because the imx25 datasheet uses a "1" based counting scheme, while the
imx28 uses a "0" based one.

So it's best practise to follow the naming and numbering scheme of the
hardware reference manual.....and if you have access to the
documentation of the m_can core, use clock names of the m_can core for
the clock-names property.

Marc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |