On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 06:30:54AM +0000, William Qiu wrote: > > From: Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:12:37AM +0800, William Qiu wrote: > > > +properties: > > > + compatible: > > > + enum: > > > + - cast,can > > > + - cast,canfd > > > > I don't like these uber generic compatibles that have no users as a fallback. > > Allowing them in the binding only really discourages people from creating device > > specific compatibles. > > Secondly, this is some purchased IP that I am sure has a versioning scheme and > > the compatibles that you have created do not reflect that. > > If they were being used as a fallback, I would request some versioning. > > That's not going to really work though since the canfd features on the > > jh7110 require setting u0_can_ctrl_can_fd_enable, so neither of these > > compatibles really has a use right now. > > > I'll add some tag to do versioning. I don't want to see a "cast,can-<something>" compatible allowed in isolation either as there is no user for it. The generic compatibles like that should only be permitted in combination with a device specific one - particularly since there are bits in implementation defined registers that control whether or not canfd is enabled.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
