[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <043b37a0-5aa4-0311-a3f4-09c61ad20671@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 14:14:09 +0200
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/6] add initial CAN PHY support
On 10/23/20 1:45 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 12:56:20PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>> - The upcoming CAN SIC and CAN SIC XL PHYs use a different interface to
>> the CAN controller. This means the controller needs to know which type
>> of PHY is attached to configure the interface in the correct mode. Use
>> PHY link for that, too.
>
> Is this dynamic in some form?
There isn't any CAN SIC transceivers out there yet. I suspect there will be no
auto detection possible, so we would describe the type of the attached
transceiver via device tree.
In the future I can think of some devices that have a MUX and use the a classic
transceiver (CAN high-speed) for legacy deployments and CAN SIC transceivers if
connected to a "modern" CAN bus.
Someone (i.e. the user or the system integrator) has to configure the MUX to
select the correct transceiver.
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists