linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add Support for MCAN in AM654x-idk

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f6bf75f0-68ea-0b61-ed43-9ad894016cfd@ti.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jan 2020 17:16:10 +0530
From:   Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@...com>
To:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <catalin.marinas@....com>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <wg@...ndegger.com>,
        <sriram.dash@...sung.com>, <dmurphy@...com>, <nm@...com>,
        <t-kristo@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add Support for MCAN in AM654x-idk

Marc,

On 23/01/20 4:47 pm, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 1/22/20 9:03 AM, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>> This series adds driver patches to support MCAN in TI's AM654x-idk.
>>
>> Faiz Abbas (3):
>>   dt-bindings: net: can: m_can: Add Documentation for stb-gpios
>>   can: m_can: m_can_platform: Add support for enabling transceiver
>>     through the STB line
>>   arm64: defconfig: Add Support for Bosch M_CAN controllers
>>
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/m_can.txt |  2 ++
>>  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig                        |  3 +++
>>  drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can_platform.c              | 12 ++++++++++++
>>  3 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
> 
> What about adding support for xceiver-supply as done in several other
> drivers (ti_hecc.c, flexcan.c, mcp251x.c)? And using this for the stb line?

Looks like you had given this feedback a long time ago and I forgot
about it. Sorry about that :-)

https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1006238/

But now that I think about it, its kinda weird that we are modelling
part of the transceiver as a separate child node
(Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/can-transceiver.txt) and the
other parts as a regulator.

Anyone looking at the transceiver node would figure thats where the
enable gpio/regulator node needs to go instead of the parent node.
Shouldn't we have all transceiver properties under the same node?

Thanks,
Faiz