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

[Robin Holt]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:43:13AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> 
> >> 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:

Grants argument was that there should then be a fsl,zeba-flexcan which
would define each arm based soc.  The match string could be there and
the devicetree binding would match on each equivalent.

Robin

> 
> 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