On 9/29/20 1:25 PM, Thomas.Kopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> So far in that name space there are the mcp2510, mcp2515 and mcp25625. >> From the >> SW point of view the 2515 and 25625 are identical while being compatible >> to the >> mcp2510 but offer more features. There's a single drver (mcp251x) for >> these. >> These chips implement the CAN-2.0 standard. >> >> Regarding the mcp2517fd and mcp2518fd, the "fd" in the name references >> the >> CAN-FD standard (successor to CAN-2.0). >> >> Maybe Thomas Kopp (Cc'ed) from Microchip can say something to this. >> >> We can rename the compatible to mcp251xfd to make it more specific. > I agree that mcp251xfd would be a good fit. We already have (theoretical) > conflicts for the xx in the namespace e.g. the MCP2542FD which is a > transceiver without any controller functionality. > > Although hard to guarantee I think it's fair to assume that no MCP251xFD > will be released that is incompatible. Makes sense to me. Thomas, can you create a patch for this? regards, Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
