Hi Prabhakar,

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:38 PM Lad, Prabhakar
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 10:51 AM Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 5:00 PM Lad Prabhakar
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

The rcar_canfd driver supports R-Car Gen3 and RZ/G2 SoC's, update the
description to reflect this.

Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>

Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>

quoted

--- a/drivers/net/can/rcar/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/net/can/rcar/Kconfig

@@ -10,13 +10,13 @@ config CAN_RCAR
          be called rcar_can.

 config CAN_RCAR_CANFD
-       tristate "Renesas R-Car CAN FD controller"
+       tristate "Renesas R-Car Gen3 and RZ/G2 CAN FD controller"
        depends on ARCH_RENESAS || ARM

Not introduced by this patch, but the "|| ARM" looks strange to me.
Is this meant for compile-testing? Doesn't the driver compile on all
platforms (it does on m68k), so "|| COMPILE_TEST" is not appropriate?
Is the CAN FD controller present on some Renesas arm32 SoCs (but
not yet supported by this driver)?

Good catch. "|| ARM" was probably copied from CAN_RCAR config and I
can confirm CAN-FD controller doesn't exist on R-Car Gen2 and RZ/G2

G1

32bit SoC's (but with a bit of google search RZ/A2M supports CAN-FD I
am not sure if its the same controller tough), but said that there

Thanks for investigating. I knew about R-Car Gen2 and RZ/G1 not having
CAN-FD.

shouldn't be any harm in replacing  "|| ARM" with "|| COMPILE_TEST"
for both CAN_RCAR_CAN{FD}. What are your thoughts?

I'd go for "|| COMPILE_TEST".

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds