On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 01:40:30PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On 08/10/2011 01:30 PM, Robin Holt wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:36:22PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 08/10/2011 12:19 PM, Robin Holt wrote: > >>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:56:28AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > >>>> Also may want to list fsl,p1010-rdb as a "canonical compatible" for > >>>> anything which is backwards compatible with p1010's implementation. > >>> > >>> How do I specify 'canonical compatible'? > >> > >> Something like: > >> > >> compatible: Should be "fsl,<processor>-flexcan" and "fsl,flexcan". > >> > >> An implementation should also claim any of the following compatibles > >> that it is fully backwards compatible with: > >> > >> - fsl,p1010-rdb > > Gah, I don't know how "rdb" replaced "flexcan" in the above. Sorry for > any confusion. > > > I am so confused. fsl,p1010-flexcan refers, in my mind at least, to > > a particular chiplet on the p1010 freescale processor. > > It refers to a particular version of the flexcan logic, for which the > hardware doc people weren't kind enough to give us a public version number. > > It has been common and recommended practice in such cases, when there > are multiple chips containing the same device, to pick a canonical chip > (such as the first one to have the device or to be supported) and have > others claim compatibility with it. > > > fsl,p1010-rdb > > would mean nothing to me as that is a p1010 processor with two flexcan > > chiplets wired to a pair of DB-9 jacks. For the driver, what additional > > information is being conveyed? > > The programming model of the flexcan chiplet. > > > Let's cut to the chase. Here is what I have after incorporating your > > earlier comment about the compatible line. Please mark this up to > > exactly what you are asking for. > > > > Thanks, > > Robin > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Flexcan CAN contoller on Freescale's ARM and PowerPC processors > > > > Required properties: > > > > - compatible : Should be "fsl,<processor>-flexcan" and "fsl,flexcan" > > An implementation should also claim any of the following compatibles > that it is fully backwards compatible with: > > - fsl,p1010-flexcan
Ah, there is my confusion. I did not realize you were saying the entire preceeding 4 lines should be included. I thought you were making a comment which I did not understand. Thank you for your patience with my ignorance, Robin _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
