[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241126-aquatic-brawny-shrimp-b3cc0e-mkl@pengutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:18:41 +0100
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To: Ciprian Marian Costea <ciprianmarian.costea@....nxp.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, NXP S32 Linux <s32@....com>,
imx@...ts.linux.dev, Christophe Lizzi <clizzi@...hat.com>,
Alberto Ruiz <aruizrui@...hat.com>, Enric Balletbo <eballetb@...hat.com>,
Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: can: fsl,flexcan: add S32G2/S32G3
SoC support
On 26.11.2024 17:15:10, Ciprian Marian Costea wrote:
> > > > > > + interrupt-names:
> > > > > > + items:
> > > > > > + - const: mb_0-7
> >
> > I was wondering if it makes sense to have an interrupt name not
> > mentioning the exact mailbox numbers, so that the same interrupt name
> > can be used for a different IP core, too. On the coldfire SoC the 1st
> > IRQ handles mailboxes 0...15.
> >
>
> I am ok with proposing a more generic name for mailboxes in order to
> increase reusability among FlexCAN enabled SoCs.
> Further specific mailbox numbers could be mentioned in the actual
> S32G2/S32G3 dtsi flexcan node.
>
> One proposal could be:
> - mb-1: First Range of Mailboxes
> - mb-2: Second Range of Mailboxes
>
> Let me know if you agree to update as proposed in V3.
Looks good to me!
regards,
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung Nürnberg | Phone: +49-5121-206917-129 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists