linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] dt-bindings: can: mcp25xxfd: document device tree bindings

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b26d4c51-7477-3e68-1c16-7b19558d6a57@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:27:33 +0200
From:   Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To:     Thomas.Kopp@...rochip.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
        manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org, o.rempel@...gutronix.de
Cc:     wg@...ndegger.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dev.kurt@...dijck-laurijssen.be
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] dt-bindings: can: mcp25xxfd: document device tree
 bindings

On 9/29/20 1:25 PM, Thomas.Kopp@...rochip.com wrote:
>> So far in that name space there are the mcp2510, mcp2515 and mcp25625.
>> From the
>> SW point of view the 2515 and 25625 are identical while being compatible
>> to the
>> mcp2510 but offer more features. There's a single drver (mcp251x) for
>> these.
>> These chips implement the CAN-2.0 standard.
>>
>> Regarding the mcp2517fd and mcp2518fd, the "fd" in the name references
>> the
>> CAN-FD standard (successor to CAN-2.0).
>>
>> Maybe Thomas Kopp (Cc'ed) from Microchip can say something to this.
>>
>> We can rename the compatible to mcp251xfd to make it more specific.
> I agree that mcp251xfd would be a good fit. We already have (theoretical)
> conflicts for the xx in the namespace e.g. the MCP2542FD which is a 
> transceiver without any controller functionality.
> 
> Although hard to guarantee I think it's fair to assume that no MCP251xFD 
> will be released that is incompatible.

Makes sense to me. Thomas, can you create a patch for this?

regards,
Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Embedded Linux                   | https://www.pengutronix.de  |
Vertretung West/Dortmund         | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)