[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200218093346.GC6075@dragon>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 17:33:51 +0800
From: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
To: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Cc: Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@....com>,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, wg@...ndegger.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
Pankaj Bansal <pankaj.bansal@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] can: flexcan: add CAN FD support for NXP Flexcan
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 09:48:36AM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
> > My opinion is that all compatibles should be defined explicitly in
> > bindings doc. In above example, the possible values of <processor>
> > should be given. This must be done anyway, as we are moving to
> > json-schema bindings.
>
> But if they are listed in the document, they also have to be in the
> of_device_id table, correct?
I do not think so. Documenting compatibles used in DTS now doesn't
necessarily mean we need to use it in kernel driver right away.
Bindings doc is a specification for device tree, not kernel. With the
compatible in DTS and bindings, kernel can start using it at any time
when there is a need, like dealing with SoC quirks or bugs found later.
Shawn
> Which somehow contradicts the talk Pankaj
> mentioned [1,2]. Eg.
>
> compatible = "fsl,ls1028ar1-flexcan","fsl,lx2160ar1-flexcan";
>
> Doesn't make any sense, because the "fsl,ls1028ar1-flexcan" is alreay
> in the driver and the fallback "fsl,lx2160ar1-flexcan" isn't needed.
>
> OTOH the talk is already 2 to 3 years old and things might have changed
> since then.
>
> -michael
>
> [1] https://elinux.org/images/0/0e/OSELAS.Presentation-ELCE2017-DT.pdf
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iguKSJJfxo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists