On 08/08/2011 04:48 PM, Robin Holt wrote: > On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 04:37:44PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> On 08/08/2011 04:21 PM, Robin Holt wrote: ... >> Well, I wrote above: "Well, no. Let's wait. I don't think we need it." > > My question remains "What should we be naming the device tree node in > general. Line 5 of the fsl-flexcan.txt file specifically calls the node > "fsl,flexcan-v1.0" In the .dts file the freescale patches introduces into > the arch/powerpc portion of the kernel, they call it that same thing.
We should provide a patch removing that doc. The version suffix does not follow the device tree convention. A proper compatibility string would be: "fsl,p1010-flexcan", "fsl,flexcan" But as the Flexcan on the P1010 is not treated differently, "fsl,flexcan" is just fine. Also, the v1.0 is only for the PowerPC SOCs (ignoring ARM). > Likewise, in the code already checked into uboot it is the same name. > Whether it is needed or not for the clock frequency, it does need to > be consistent between the .dts file and the driver for device discovery > to work. Yes, depending on what we decide we need to clean that up as well. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
