Hi Krzysztof, On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 3:41 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 20/08/2022 11:29, Dario Binacchi wrote: > > Add documentation of device tree bindings for the STM32 basic extended > > CAN (bxcan) controller. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dariobin@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Changes in v2: > > - Change the file name into 'st,stm32-bxcan-core.yaml'. > > - Rename compatibles: > > - st,stm32-bxcan-core -> st,stm32f4-bxcan-core > > - st,stm32-bxcan -> st,stm32f4-bxcan > > - Rename master property to st,can-master. > > - Remove the status property from the example. > > - Put the node child properties as required. > > > > .../bindings/net/can/st,stm32-bxcan.yaml | 136 ++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 136 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,stm32-bxcan.yaml > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,stm32-bxcan.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,stm32-bxcan.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..288631b5556d > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,stm32-bxcan.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/can/st,stm32-bxcan.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: STMicroelectronics bxCAN controller > > + > > +description: STMicroelectronics BxCAN controller for CAN bus > > + > > +maintainers: > > + - Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > + > > +allOf: > > + - $ref: can-controller.yaml# > > + > > +properties: > > + compatible: > > + enum: > > + - st,stm32f4-bxcan-core > > + > > + reg: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + > > + resets: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + > > + clocks: > > + description: > > + Input clock for registers access > > + maxItems: 1 > > + > > + '#address-cells': > > + const: 1 > > + > > + '#size-cells': > > + const: 0 > > + > > +additionalProperties: false > > + > > +required: > > + - compatible > > + - reg > > + - resets > > + - clocks > > + - '#address-cells' > > + - '#size-cells' > > + > > +patternProperties: > > No improvements here, so my comment stay. Please fix it. Sorry, I'ff fix it in version 3. > > > > + "^can@[0-9]+$": > > + type: object > > + description: > > + A CAN block node contains two subnodes, representing each one a CAN > > + instance available on the machine. > > I still do not understand why you need children. You did not CC me on > driver change, so difficult to say. You did not describe the parent On the next submissions I'll send you all the series patches. > device - there is no description. Ok, I'll do it. > Why do you need parent device at all? > This looks like some driver-driven-bindings instead of just real > hardware description. The two devices are not independent. As described in the reference manual RM0386 (STM32F469xx and STM32F479xx advanced Arm®-based 32-bit MCUs) in paragraph 34.2, the bxCAN controller is a dual CAN peripheral configuration: • CAN1: Master bxCAN for managing the communication between a Slave bxCAN and the 512-byte SRAM memory • CAN2: Slave bxCAN, with no direct access to the SRAM memory. So, if I want to use CAN2 only (and not CAN1), I need to be able to use shared resources with CAN1 without having to probe the CAN1 driver. IMHO here is the justification of the parent node. Thanks and regards, Dario > > Best regards, > Krzysztof -- Dario Binacchi Embedded Linux Developer dario.binacchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx __________________________________ Amarula Solutions SRL Via Le Canevare 30, 31100 Treviso, Veneto, IT T. +39 042 243 5310 info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.amarulasolutions.com
