Re: [RFC 5/5] [powerpc] Implement a p1010rdb clock source.

On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 04:37:44PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:

On 08/08/2011 04:21 PM, Robin Holt wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 04:16:27PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:

quoted

On 08/08/2011 03:56 PM, Robin Holt wrote:

quoted

quoted

commit 65bb8b060a873fa4f5188f2951081f6011259614
Author: Bhaskar Upadhaya [off-list ref]
Date:   Fri Mar 4 20:27:58 2011 +0530

On a side note, that commit fixes up "fsl,flexcan-v1.0"
...
+       do_fixup_by_compat_u32(blob, "fsl,flexcan-v1.0",
+                       "clock_freq", gd->bus_clk, 1);

Should I go back to flexcan-v1.0 in my patches?

Well, no. Let's wait. I don't think we need it. Also, it sets
"clock_freq" while

 http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.0.1/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fsl-flexcan.txt

documents "clock-frequencies"... :-(.

You answered a different question that I was asking.  I was asking if
I should change fsl,flexcan back to fsl,flexcan-v1.0 as documented on
line 5.  The clock_freq looks like a uboot change will need to be made
as well.

Well, I wrote above: "Well, no. Let's wait. I don't think we need it."

My question remains "What should we be naming the device tree node in
general.  Line 5 of the fsl-flexcan.txt file specifically calls the node
"fsl,flexcan-v1.0"  In the .dts file the freescale patches introduces into
the arch/powerpc portion of the kernel, they call it that same thing.
Likewise, in the code already checked into uboot it is the same name.
Whether it is needed or not for the clock frequency, it does need to
be consistent between the .dts file and the driver for device discovery
to work.

Thanks,
Robin