Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: net: can: add STM32 bxcan DT bindings
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <hidden>
Date: 2022-08-18 08:22:41
Also in:
linux-can, linux-devicetree, lkml
On 17/08/2022 17:35, Dario Binacchi wrote:
Add documentation of device tree bindings for the STM32 basic extended CAN (bxcan) controller. Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <redacted> Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com>
You do not need two SoBs. Keep only one, matching the From field.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- .../devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml | 139 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 139 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yamldiff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..f4cfd26e4785 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml
File name like compatible, so st,stm32-bxcan-core.yaml (or some other name, see comment later)
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: STMicroelectronics bxCAN controller Device Tree Bindings
s/Device Tree Bindings//
+ +description: STMicroelectronics BxCAN controller for CAN bus + +maintainers: + - Dario Binacchi [off-list ref] + +allOf: + - $ref: can-controller.yaml# + +properties: + compatible: + enum: + - st,stm32-bxcan-core
compatibles are supposed to be specific. If this is some type of micro-SoC, then it should have its name/number. If it is dedicated device, is the final name bxcan core? Google says the first is true, so you miss specific device part.
+ + reg: + maxItems: 1 + + resets: + maxItems: 1 + + clocks: + description: + Input clock for registers access + maxItems: 1 + + '#address-cells': + const: 1 + + '#size-cells': + const: 0 + +required: + - compatible + - reg + - resets + - clocks + - '#address-cells' + - '#size-cells' + +additionalProperties: false + +patternProperties:
This goes after "properties: in top level (before "required").
+ "^can@[0-9]+$": + type: object + description: + A CAN block node contains two subnodes, representing each one a CAN + instance available on the machine. + + properties: + compatible: + enum: + - st,stm32-bxcan
Why exactly do you need compatible for the child? Is it an entierly separate device? Comments about specific part are applied here as well.
+ + master:
Is this a standard property? I don't see it anywhere else. Non-standard properties require vendor prefix.
+ description:
+ Master and slave mode of the bxCAN peripheral is only relevant
+ if the chip has two CAN peripherals. In that case they share
+ some of the required logic, and that means you cannot use the
+ slave CAN without the master CAN.
+ type: boolean
+
+ reg:
+ description: |
+ Offset of CAN instance in CAN block. Valid values are:
+ - 0x0: CAN1
+ - 0x400: CAN2
+ maxItems: 1
+
+ interrupts:
+ items:
+ - description: transmit interrupt
+ - description: FIFO 0 receive interrupt
+ - description: FIFO 1 receive interrupt
+ - description: status change error interrupt
+
+ interrupt-names:
+ items:
+ - const: tx
+ - const: rx0
+ - const: rx1
+ - const: sce
+
+ resets:
+ maxItems: 1
+
+ clocks:
+ description:
+ Input clock for registers access
+ maxItems: 1
+
+ additionalProperties: false
+
+ required:
+ - compatible
+ - reg
+ - interrupts
+ - resets
+
+examples:
+ - |
+ #include <dt-bindings/clock/stm32fx-clock.h>
+ #include <dt-bindings/mfd/stm32f4-rcc.h>
+
+ can: can@40006400 {
+ compatible = "st,stm32-bxcan-core";
+ reg = <0x40006400 0x800>;
+ resets = <&rcc STM32F4_APB1_RESET(CAN1)>;
+ clocks = <&rcc 0 STM32F4_APB1_CLOCK(CAN1)>;
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+ status = "disabled";No status in examples.
+
+ can1: can@0 {
+ compatible = "st,stm32-bxcan";
+ reg = <0x0>;
+ interrupts = <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>;
+ interrupt-names = "tx", "rx0", "rx1", "sce";
+ resets = <&rcc STM32F4_APB1_RESET(CAN1)>;
+ master;
+ status = "disabled";No status in examples.
+ };
+
+ can2: can@400 {
+ compatible = "st,stm32-bxcan";
+ reg = <0x400>;
+ interrupts = <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>;
+ interrupt-names = "tx", "rx0", "rx1", "sce";
+ resets = <&rcc STM32F4_APB1_RESET(CAN2)>;
+ clocks = <&rcc 0 STM32F4_APB1_CLOCK(CAN2)>;
+ status = "disabled";No status in examples.
+ }; + };
Best regards, Krzysztof