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

Date:   Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:25:56 +0000
From:   <Thomas.Kopp@...rochip.com>
To:     <mkl@...gutronix.de>, <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

> 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.

Thomas