Hi,

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:58:21PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:

On 09/14/2015 02:54 PM, Gerhard Bertelsmann wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Gerhard Bertelsmann <redacted>
---

 .../devicetree/bindings/net/can/sun4i_can.txt      |  37 +
 1 files changed, 37 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/sun4i_can.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/sun4i_can.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b572e2b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/sun4i_can.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+Allwinner A10/A20 CAN controller Device Tree Bindings
+-----------------------------------------------------
+
+Required properties:
+- compatible: "allwinner,sunxican"
+- reg: physical base address and size of the Allwinner A10/A20 CAN register map.
+- interrupts: interrupt specifier for the sole interrupt.
+- clock: phandle and clock specifier.
+
+Example
+-------
+
+SoC common .dtsi file:
+
+	can0_pins_a: can0 <at> 0 {

That's supposed to be a proper "@":

    can0@0

quoted

+		allwinner,pins = "PH20","PH21";
+		allwinner,function = "can";
+		allwinner,drive = <0>;
+		allwinner,pull = <0>;
+	};
+
+	can0: can <at> 01c2bc00 {

    can0@01c2bc00

Actually, beside '<at>' vs '@', he was right.

The name of the node in the DT should be:

<device class>@<address>

Which in our case is can@01c2bc00, like he used.

quoted

+		compatible = "allwinner,sunxican";

However, the compatible is still not right.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com