On 26.11.2024 16:18:41, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 26.11.2024 17:15:10, Ciprian Marian Costea wrote: > > > > > > > + interrupt-names: > > > > > > > + items: > > > > > > > + - const: mb_0-7 > > > > > > I was wondering if it makes sense to have an interrupt name not > > > mentioning the exact mailbox numbers, so that the same interrupt name > > > can be used for a different IP core, too. On the coldfire SoC the 1st > > > IRQ handles mailboxes 0...15. > > > > > > > I am ok with proposing a more generic name for mailboxes in order to > > increase reusability among FlexCAN enabled SoCs. > > Further specific mailbox numbers could be mentioned in the actual > > S32G2/S32G3 dtsi flexcan node. > > > > One proposal could be: > > - mb-1: First Range of Mailboxes > > - mb-2: Second Range of Mailboxes > > > > Let me know if you agree to update as proposed in V3. > > Looks good to me! Or maybe start with "0", that makes it a bit easier to construct the names of the IRQ-names in a for loop. regards, Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | Vertretung Nürnberg | Phone: +49-5121-206917-129 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
