On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:43:13AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
quoted
quoted
Robin,
Do you remember why we went with just 'fsl,p1010-flexcan' as the device tree compatible? Do we feel the flex can on P1010 isn't the same as on MPC5xxx? or the ARM SoCs?
The decision was due to the fact there is no true "generic" fsl.flexcan
chip free of any SOC implementation and therefore not something which
could be separately defined. That decision was made by Grant Likely.
I will inline that email below.
Robin
Thanks, I'll look into this internally at FSL. I think its confusing as hell to have "fsl,p1010-flexcan" in an ARM .dts and don't think any reasonable ARM customer of FSL would know to put a PPC SOC name in their .dts. I'll ask the HW guys what's going on so we can come up with a bit more generic name so we don't have to constantly change this. Even if its just:
Grants argument was that there should then be a fsl,zeba-flexcan which
would define each arm based soc. The match string could be there and
the devicetree binding would match on each equivalent.
Robin
fsl,ppc-flexcan & fsl,arm-flexcan.
quoted
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 09:13:50AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Robin Holt [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Grant,
Earlier, you had asked for a more specific name for the compatible
property of the Freescale flexcan device. I still have not gotten a
more specific answer. Hopefully Marc can give you more details about
the flexcan implementations.
If there is no ip core version, then just stick with the
fsl,<soc>-flexcan name and drop "fsl,flexcan". Marketing may say
flexcan is flexcan, but hardware engineers like to change things.
Trying to be too generic in compatible values will just lead to
problems in the future.
Thanks,
Robin
- k