lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings
From
Date
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-03 14:24    [W:0.056 / U:0.920 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site