Hi Marc, On 21/02/20 2:01 pm, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 2/21/20 9:31 AM, Faiz Abbas wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> >> On 20/02/20 2:05 am, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 07:58:34PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote: >>>> Some CAN transceivers have a standby line that needs to be asserted >>>> before they can be used. Model this GPIO lines as an optional >>>> fixed-regulator node. Document bindings for the same. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@xxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/m_can.txt | 3 +++ >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>> >>> This has moved to DT schema in my tree, so please adjust it and resend. >> >> Ok. >>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/m_can.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/m_can.txt >>>> index ed614383af9c..f17e2a5207dc 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/m_can.txt >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/m_can.txt >>>> @@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ Optional Subnode: >>>> that can be used for CAN/CAN-FD modes. See >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/can-transceiver.txt >>>> for details. >>>> + >>>> +- xceiver-supply: Regulator that powers the CAN transceiver. >>> >>> The supply for a transceiver should go in the transceiver node. >>> >> >> Marc, while I have you here, do you agree with this? > > I'll look into the details later today. > Sure. Be sure to take another look at my attempt to use the transceiver with a phy driver some time ago. https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1006238/ Thanks, Faiz
