Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: ls1028a: add missing CAN nodes

[Michael Walle]

Am 2020-09-24 17:53, schrieb Leo Li:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 6:31 AM
> > To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> > linux-
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-can@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Shawn Guo
> > <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Marc Kleine-
> > Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: ls1028a: add missing CAN nodes
> >
> > Am 2020-09-24 02:35, schrieb Leo Li:
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 4:57 AM
> > >> To: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > >> linux-
> > >> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-can@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx>; Leo Li <leoyang.li@xxxxxxx>;
> > Rob
> > >> Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Marc Kleine-Budde
> > <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > >> Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@xxxxxxx>; Michael Walle
> > >> <michael@xxxxxxxx>
> > >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: ls1028a: add missing CAN nodes
> > >>
> > >> The LS1028A has two FlexCAN controller. These are compatible with the
> > >> ones
> > >> from the LX2160A. Add the nodes.
> > >>
> > >> The first controller was tested on the Kontron sl28 board.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
> > >> ---
> > >>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi | 18
> > >> ++++++++++++++++++
> > >>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
> > >> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
> > >> index 0efeb8fa773e..807ee921ec12 100644
> > >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
> > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
> > >> @@ -386,6 +386,24 @@
> > >>  			status = "disabled";
> > >>  		};
> > >>
> > >> +		can0: can@2180000 {
> > >> +			compatible = "fsl,ls1028ar1-flexcan", "fsl,lx2160ar1-
> > >> flexcan";
> > >
> > > The explicit compatible strings cannot be found in the binding, but
> > > matched by the "fsl,<processor>-flexcan" pattern in the binding.  Is
> > > this considered to be acceptable now?
> >
> > What is the consequence if it is not acceptable? replacing the pattern
> > with individual compatible strings?
>
> There is a recommendation in the kernel documentation quoted below:
>
>   7) The wildcard "<chip>" may be used in compatible strings, as in
>      the following example:
>
>          - compatible: Must contain '"nvidia,<chip>-pcie",
>            "nvidia,tegra20-pcie"' where <chip> is tegra30, tegra132, 
> ...
>
>      As in the above example, the known values of "<chip>" should be
>      documented if it is used.
>
> But I am not sure if this is still a hard requirement.  If so, we
> should list the processors in the binding.

Marc, I'd convert this to yaml format, may I put your name as the
maintainer in the binding?

-michael