>> 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: fsl,ppc-flexcan & fsl,arm-flexcan. > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 09:13:50AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Robin Holt <h...@sgi.com> wrote: >>> 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 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
