On 10/18/2011 06:43 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: > >>> 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
It's confusing to have devices labelled in vague ways that we can't tie back to any real piece of hardware, or even a public architectural spec. If you're talking to our hardware people, ask them to put public names and versions, guaranteed unique throughout FSL, on all of our logic blocks -- with public block manuals that have any SW-relevant integration parameters clearly itemized. Why is putting "fsl,p1010-flexcan" an an ARM device any more confusing than putting it on some PowerPC chip that is not a p1010? Think of it like a PCI ID, the actual value not being meaningful for much other than its uniqueness and the ability to find a manual for the hardware. This has been the recommended practice for quite some time. > and don't think any reasonable ARM customer of FSL would know to put > a PPC SOC name in their .dts. If an ARM device tree comes along that just has "fsl,some-arm-chip-flexcan", so what? Let the same driver bind against both, again like PCI IDs. Additional compatibles are mainly a convenience to give things a chance to work before the driver is updated (a frequent irritant with PCI IDs and new hardware). Ideally we would be publishing a sample device tree for our ARM chips and their peripherals, though. :-P > 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. Why is CPU instruction set relevant? Would a QorIQ customer think to check for an existing compatible in mpc5xxx, or even mpc83xx or mpc86xx? -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev