On 10/07/2013 10:17 AM, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Marc Kleine-Budde writes:
>> On 10/05/2013 07:46 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> The imx28.dtsi gives this compatible string for its CAN core:
>>>>
>>>>> compatible = "fsl,imx28-flexcan", "fsl,p1010-flexcan";
>>>>
>>>> The flexcan driver defines:
>>>>
>>>>> static const struct of_device_id flexcan_of_match[] = {
>>>>> { .compatible = "fsl,p1010-flexcan", .data = &fsl_p1010_devtype_data, },
>>>>> { .compatible = "fsl,imx28-flexcan", .data = &fsl_imx28_devtype_data, },
>>>>> { .compatible = "fsl,imx6q-flexcan", .data = &fsl_imx6q_devtype_data, },
>>>>> { /* sentinel */ },
>>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> The "p1010" was the first Freescale SoC with the flexcan core. But this SoC has
>>>> a bug, so a workaround has to be enabled in the driver. The mx28 has this bug
>>>> fixed, so we don't need this quite costly workaround.
>>>
>>> What about defining in imx28.dtsi:
>>> compatible = "fsl,imx28-flexcan".
>>
>> It already works with changing only the driver.
>>
> IMO the change proposed by Fabio is much more sensible. If the imx28
> implementation of the CAN controller is not compatible to p1010 (which
> is obviously true) there is no point in having the "fsl,p1010-flexcan"
> in the DT for imx28.
But it is compatible with the "fsl,p1010-flexcan".
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
