[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 11:37:28 +0300
From: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
To: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
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
Hi Marc,
On 09/09/2014 11:34 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> 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.
>
Fine, I'll re-spin this with the "ti," prefix. Thanks.
cheers,
-roger
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists