> -----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. Regards, Leo