On 07/03/2014 05:48 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:13:07PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:

quoted

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

quoted

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.

Based on my knowledge, device tree allows define phandle name according to
the real device name of HW according spec while the device node name should
be general(e.g can@80032000 rather than flexcan@80032000).
For imx6sx, there are already following entries in
arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sx.dtsi
flexcan1: can@02090000 {...}
flexcan2: can@02094000 {...}
So i'd prefer to define as:
m_can1: canfd@020e8000 {...}
m_can2: canfd@020f0000 {...}


One problem is there're can alias already.
aliases {
	can0 = &flexcan1;
	can1 = &flexcan2;
	...
}
I'm not sure adding can2&can3 for mcan is properly:
aliases {
	can0 = &flexcan1;
	can1 = &flexcan2;
	can2 = &m_can1;
	can3 = &m_can2;
	...
}
Since the m_can driver does not need to use aliases,
so i will not add them.

IMHO It's fine too add the can{2,3} aliases to m_can, too.

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   |