lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: net: can: add STM32 bxcan DT bindings
    From
    On 20/08/2022 11:08, Dario Binacchi wrote:
    > Hi Krzysztof,
    >
    > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 10:22 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
    > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
    >>
    >> On 17/08/2022 17:35, Dario Binacchi wrote:
    >>> Add documentation of device tree bindings for the STM32 basic extended
    >>> CAN (bxcan) controller.
    >>>
    >>> Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dariobin@libero.it>
    >>> Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com>
    >>
    >> You do not need two SoBs. Keep only one, matching the From field.
    >
    > I started implementing this driver in my spare time, so my intention
    > was to keep track of it.

    SoB is not related to copyrights. Keep personal copyrights (with/next to
    work ones), but SoB is coming from a person and that's only one. Choose
    one "person".

    >
    >>
    >>> ---
    >>>
    >>> .../devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml | 139 ++++++++++++++++++
    >>> 1 file changed, 139 insertions(+)
    >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml
    >>>
    >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml
    >>> new file mode 100644
    >>> index 000000000000..f4cfd26e4785
    >>> --- /dev/null
    >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml
    >>
    >> File name like compatible, so st,stm32-bxcan-core.yaml (or some other
    >> name, see comment later)
    >
    >>
    >>> @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
    >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
    >>> +%YAML 1.2
    >>> +---
    >>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml#
    >>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
    >>> +
    >>> +title: STMicroelectronics bxCAN controller Device Tree Bindings
    >>
    >> s/Device Tree Bindings//
    >
    >>
    >>> +
    >>> +description: STMicroelectronics BxCAN controller for CAN bus
    >>> +
    >>> +maintainers:
    >>> + - Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com>
    >>> +
    >>> +allOf:
    >>> + - $ref: can-controller.yaml#
    >>> +
    >>> +properties:
    >>> + compatible:
    >>> + enum:
    >>> + - st,stm32-bxcan-core
    >>
    >> compatibles are supposed to be specific. If this is some type of
    >> micro-SoC, then it should have its name/number. If it is dedicated
    >> device, is the final name bxcan core? Google says the first is true, so
    >> you miss specific device part.
    >
    > I don't know if I understand correctly, I hope the change in version 2
    > is what you requested.

    What is the name of the SoC, where this is in?

    >
    >>
    >>> +
    >>> + reg:
    >>> + maxItems: 1
    >>> +
    >>> + resets:
    >>> + maxItems: 1
    >>> +
    >>> + clocks:
    >>> + description:
    >>> + Input clock for registers access
    >>> + maxItems: 1
    >>> +
    >>> + '#address-cells':
    >>> + const: 1
    >>> +
    >>> + '#size-cells':
    >>> + const: 0
    >>> +
    >>> +required:
    >>> + - compatible
    >>> + - reg
    >>> + - resets
    >>> + - clocks
    >>> + - '#address-cells'
    >>> + - '#size-cells'
    >>> +
    >>> +additionalProperties: false
    >>> +
    >>> +patternProperties:
    >>
    >> This goes after "properties: in top level (before "required").
    >>
    >>> + "^can@[0-9]+$":
    >>> + type: object
    >>> + description:
    >>> + A CAN block node contains two subnodes, representing each one a CAN
    >>> + instance available on the machine.
    >>> +
    >>> + properties:
    >>> + compatible:
    >>> + enum:
    >>> + - st,stm32-bxcan
    >>
    >> Why exactly do you need compatible for the child? Is it an entierly
    >> separate device?
    >
    > I took inspiration from other drivers for ST microcontroller
    > peripherals (e. g. drivers/iio/adc/stm32-adc-core.c,
    > drivers/iio/adc/stm32-adc.c) where
    > some resources are shared between the peripheral instances. In the
    > case of CAN, master (CAN1) and slave (CAN2) share the registers for
    > configuring the filters and the clock.
    > In the core module you can find the functions about the shared
    > resources, while the childrens implement the driver.

    In both cases you refer to the driver, but we talk here about bindings
    which are rather not related. So I repeat the question - is the child
    entirely separate device which can be used in other devices?


    Best regards,
    Krzysztof

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-08-22 19:40    [W:5.400 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site