Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings | From | Sergei Shtylyov <> | Date | Thu, 3 Aug 2017 15:22:55 +0300 |
| |
On 08/03/2017 12:48 PM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
>>> Add documentation to describe usage of the new fixed transceiver binding. >>> This new binding is applicable for any CAN device therefore it exists as >>> its own document. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt | 24 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt >>> >>> diff --git >>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..2f58838b >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt >>> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ >>> +Fixed transceiver Device Tree binding >>> +------------------------------ >>> + >>> +CAN transceiver typically limits the max speed in standard CAN and >>> CAN FD >>> +modes. Typically these limitations are static and the transceivers >>> themselves >>> +provide no way to detect this limitation at runtime. For this situation, >>> +the "fixed-transceiver" node can be used. >>> + >>> +Required Properties: >>> + max-bitrate: a positive non 0 value that determines the max >>> + speed that CAN/CAN-FD can run. Any other value >>> + will be ignored. >>> + >>> +Examples: >>> + >>> +Based on Texas Instrument's TCAN1042HGV CAN Transceiver >>> + >>> +m_can0 { >>> + .... >>> + fixed-transceiver@0 { >> >> The <unit-address> (after @) must only be specified if there's "reg" > > Sorry. Fixed this in my v2 and some how it came back. Will fix. > >> prop in the device node. Also, please name the node "can-transceiver@" >> to be more in line with the DT spec. which requires generic node names. > > Its possible for future can transceivers drivers to be created. So I
So what? Ah, you are using the node name to match in the CAN drivers...
> thought including fixed was important to indicate that this is a "dumb" > transceiver similar to "fixed-link".
I'm not sure the "fixed-link" MAC subnode assumed any transceiver at all...
> So would "fixed-can-transceiver" be > ok or do you want to go with can-transceiver?
I'm somewhat perplexed at this point...
MBR, Sergei
| |