Hi,

On 09/08/2014 07:40 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

Hello.

On 9/8/2014 6:10 PM, Roger Quadros wrote:

quoted

The SoC supports 2 DCAN nodes. Add them.

quoted

Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <redacted>
---
  arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7.dtsi | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7.dtsi
index 370009e..4ce1a4f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7.dtsi

[...]

quoted

@@ -1267,6 +1269,34 @@
              ti,irqs-skip = <10 133 139 140>;
              ti,irqs-safe-map = <0>;
          };
+
+        dcan1: d_can@481cc000 {

   The ePAPR standard has something to say here:

quoted

quoted

The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting the function of the device and not its precise programming model. If appropriate, the name should be one of the following choices:

    • can

Right. I'll fix it up.

quoted

quoted

quoted

+            compatible = "bosch,d_can";
+            ti,hwmods = "dcan1";
+            reg = <0x4ae3c000 0x2000>,
+                  <0x558 0x4>; /* index to RAMINIT reg within syscon */
+            raminit-syscon = <&dra7_ctrl_core>;
+            raminit-start-bit = <3>;
+            raminit-done-bit = <1>;
+            raminit-pulse;

   Hm, aren't the above 4 properties vendor specific? If so, they should start with a vendor prefix and comma.

At least for now I don't know about any other platform other than TI using a RAMINIT register outside the
CAN register space. However the mechanism is generic enough and not limited to TI platforms.

I don't mind vendor prefix or not, but would like to hear the opinion of the CAN maintainers as to what they would prefer.

quoted

+            interrupts = <GIC_SPI 222 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+            clocks = <&dcan1_sys_clk_mux>;
+            status = "disabled";
+        };

cheers,
-roger