[PATCH v13 0/6] flexcan: Add support for powerpc flexcan (freescale p1010)

[Kumar Gala]

>> Robin,
>> 
>> Do you remember why we went with just 'fsl,p1010-flexcan' as the device tree compatible?  Do we feel the flex can on P1010 isn't the same as on MPC5xxx? or the ARM SoCs?
> 
> The decision was due to the fact there is no true "generic" fsl.flexcan
> chip free of any SOC implementation and therefore not something which
> could be separately defined.  That decision was made by Grant Likely.
> I will inline that email below.
> 
> Robin


Thanks, I'll look into this internally at FSL.  I think its confusing as hell to have "fsl,p1010-flexcan" in an ARM .dts and don't think any reasonable ARM customer of FSL would know to put a PPC SOC name in their .dts.  I'll ask the HW guys what's going on so we can come up with a bit more generic name so we don't have to constantly change this.  Even if its just:

fsl,ppc-flexcan & fsl,arm-flexcan.

> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 09:13:50AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Robin Holt <holt at sgi.com> wrote:
>>> Grant,
>>> 
>>> Earlier, you had asked for a more specific name for the compatible
>>> property of the Freescale flexcan device.  I still have not gotten a
>>> more specific answer.  Hopefully Marc can give you more details about
>>> the flexcan implementations.
>> 
>> If there is no ip core version, then just stick with the
>> fsl,<soc>-flexcan name and drop "fsl,flexcan".  Marketing may say
>> flexcan is flexcan, but hardware engineers like to change things.
>> Trying to be too generic in compatible values will just lead to
>> problems in the future.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin

- k