Hello Marc,

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

What is your opinion about the remarks below?

Regards,
Oliver

On 30.06.2014 10:26, Dong Aisheng wrote:

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 08:03:20PM +0200, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:

quoted

quoted

+  for each elements definition.
+
+Example:
+canfd1: canfd@020e8000 {

   ^^^^^^  ^^^^^

There's no reason to name this canfd. The fact that the controller supports
CAN FD is provided by priv->ctrlmode_supported and the CAN_CTRLMODE_FD bit.

Just because mx6sx spec calling it CANFD at many places.
e.g.
Interrupts:
146 CANFD1 CANFD1 interrupt request
147 CANFD2 CANFD2 interrupt request
Memory Map:
020F_0000 020F_3FFF CANFD2 16 KB
020E_8000 020E_BFFF CANFD1 16 KB
So i used canfd firstly.
CCM:
CANFD
ips_clk can_clk_root CCGR1[CG15] (canfd_clk_enable)
m_can_0_cclk can_clk_root CCGR1[CG15] (canfd_clk_enable)
m_can_0_ips_clk can_clk_root CCGR1[CG15] (canfd_clk_enable)

quoted

Just write

can1: can@020e8000 {

I'm ok with this style.
Maybe the following is better:
m_can1: can@020e8000 {

quoted

quoted

+	compatible = "bosch,m_can";
+	reg = <0x020e8000 0x4000>, <0x02298000 0x4000>;
+	reg-names = "canfd", "message_ram";

                     ^^^^^
dito.

How about m_can?
Since it's IP driver, not depends on how SoC naming it.

quoted

quoted

+	interrupts = <0 114 0x04>;
+	clocks = <&clks IMX6SX_CLK_CANFD>;

                                   ^^^^^
dito.

Not for this one, because imx6sx spec calling it CANFD in Clock
chaptor.
We want to align with our spec since it's arch code.