[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 10:34:54 +0200
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>,
Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
wg@...ndegger.com, tony@...mide.com
CC: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
mugunthanvnm@...com, george.cherian@...com, balbi@...com,
nsekhar@...com, nm@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] ARM: dts: DRA7: Add DCAN nodes
On 09/09/2014 10:30 AM, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>> + compatible = "bosch,d_can";
>>> + ti,hwmods = "dcan1";
>>> + reg = <0x4ae3c000 0x2000>,
>>> + <0x558 0x4>; /* index to RAMINIT reg within syscon */
>>> + raminit-syscon = <&dra7_ctrl_core>;
>>> + raminit-start-bit = <3>;
>>> + raminit-done-bit = <1>;
>>> + raminit-pulse;
>>
>> Hm, aren't the above 4 properties vendor specific? If so, they should start with a vendor prefix and comma.
>
> At least for now I don't know about any other platform other than TI using a RAMINIT register outside the
> CAN register space. However the mechanism is generic enough and not limited to TI platforms.
>
> I don't mind vendor prefix or not, but would like to hear the opinion of the CAN maintainers as to what they would prefer.
I don't know of any c_can/d_can implementation outside of TI that
implements the raminit outside of the register space. So a "ti," prefix
seems appropriate.
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists