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?
-michael
