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 <[email protected]>
---
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";
+ reg = <0x0 0x2180000 0x0 0x10000>;
+ interrupts = <GIC_SPI 21 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+ clocks = <&sysclk>, <&clockgen 4 1>;
+ clock-names = "ipg", "per";
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
+
+ can1: can@2190000 {
+ compatible = "fsl,ls1028ar1-flexcan", "fsl,lx2160ar1-flexcan";
+ reg = <0x0 0x2190000 0x0 0x10000>;
+ interrupts = <GIC_SPI 22 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+ clocks = <&sysclk>, <&clockgen 4 1>;
+ clock-names = "ipg", "per";
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
+
duart0: serial@21c0500 {
compatible = "fsl,ns16550", "ns16550a";
reg = <0x00 0x21c0500 0x0 0x100>;
--
2.20.1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Walle <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 4:57 AM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: Shawn Guo <[email protected]>; Leo Li <[email protected]>; Rob
> Herring <[email protected]>; Marc Kleine-Budde <[email protected]>;
> Joakim Zhang <[email protected]>; Michael Walle
> <[email protected]>
> 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 <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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?
> + reg = <0x0 0x2180000 0x0 0x10000>;
> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 21 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> + clocks = <&sysclk>, <&clockgen 4 1>;
> + clock-names = "ipg", "per";
> + status = "disabled";
> + };
> +
> + can1: can@2190000 {
> + compatible = "fsl,ls1028ar1-flexcan", "fsl,lx2160ar1-
> flexcan";
> + reg = <0x0 0x2190000 0x0 0x10000>;
> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 22 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> + clocks = <&sysclk>, <&clockgen 4 1>;
> + clock-names = "ipg", "per";
> + status = "disabled";
> + };
> +
> duart0: serial@21c0500 {
> compatible = "fsl,ns16550", "ns16550a";
> reg = <0x00 0x21c0500 0x0 0x100>;
> --
> 2.20.1
Am 2020-09-24 02:35, schrieb Leo Li:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Walle <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 4:57 AM
>> To: [email protected]; [email protected];
>> linux-
>> [email protected]; [email protected]
>> Cc: Shawn Guo <[email protected]>; Leo Li <[email protected]>; Rob
>> Herring <[email protected]>; Marc Kleine-Budde <[email protected]>;
>> Joakim Zhang <[email protected]>; Michael Walle
>> <[email protected]>
>> 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 <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> 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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Walle <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 6:31 AM
> To: Leo Li <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Shawn Guo
> <[email protected]>; Rob Herring <[email protected]>; Marc Kleine-
> Budde <[email protected]>; Joakim Zhang <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: ls1028a: add missing CAN nodes
>
> Am 2020-09-24 02:35, schrieb Leo Li:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Michael Walle <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 4:57 AM
> >> To: [email protected]; [email protected];
> >> linux-
> >> [email protected]; [email protected]
> >> Cc: Shawn Guo <[email protected]>; Leo Li <[email protected]>;
> Rob
> >> Herring <[email protected]>; Marc Kleine-Budde
> <[email protected]>;
> >> Joakim Zhang <[email protected]>; Michael Walle
> >> <[email protected]>
> >> 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 <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> 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?
There is a recommendation in the kernel documentation quoted below:
7) The wildcard "<chip>" may be used in compatible strings, as in
the following example:
- compatible: Must contain '"nvidia,<chip>-pcie",
"nvidia,tegra20-pcie"' where <chip> is tegra30, tegra132, ...
As in the above example, the known values of "<chip>" should be
documented if it is used.
But I am not sure if this is still a hard requirement. If so, we should list the processors in the binding.
Regards,
Leo
Am 2020-09-24 17:53, schrieb Leo Li:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Walle <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 6:31 AM
>> To: Leo Li <[email protected]>
>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
>> linux-
>> [email protected]; [email protected]; Shawn Guo
>> <[email protected]>; Rob Herring <[email protected]>; Marc Kleine-
>> Budde <[email protected]>; Joakim Zhang <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: ls1028a: add missing CAN nodes
>>
>> Am 2020-09-24 02:35, schrieb Leo Li:
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Michael Walle <[email protected]>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 4:57 AM
>> >> To: [email protected]; [email protected];
>> >> linux-
>> >> [email protected]; [email protected]
>> >> Cc: Shawn Guo <[email protected]>; Leo Li <[email protected]>;
>> Rob
>> >> Herring <[email protected]>; Marc Kleine-Budde
>> <[email protected]>;
>> >> Joakim Zhang <[email protected]>; Michael Walle
>> >> <[email protected]>
>> >> 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 <[email protected]>
>> >> ---
>> >> 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?
>
> There is a recommendation in the kernel documentation quoted below:
>
> 7) The wildcard "<chip>" may be used in compatible strings, as in
> the following example:
>
> - compatible: Must contain '"nvidia,<chip>-pcie",
> "nvidia,tegra20-pcie"' where <chip> is tegra30, tegra132,
> ...
>
> As in the above example, the known values of "<chip>" should be
> documented if it is used.
>
> But I am not sure if this is still a hard requirement. If so, we
> should list the processors in the binding.
Marc, I'd convert this to yaml format, may I put your name as the
maintainer in the binding?
-michael
On 9/25/20 11:31 AM, Michael Walle wrote:
> Marc, I'd convert this to yaml format,
Oleksij (CC'ed) is working already on this.
> may I put your name as the maintainer in the binding?
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 |
Am 2020-09-25 11:34, schrieb Marc Kleine-Budde:
> On 9/25/20 11:31 AM, Michael Walle wrote:
>> Marc, I'd convert this to yaml format,
>
> Oleksij (CC'ed) is working already on this.
Cool.
Oleksij, if there will be individual compatible strings, could you
already add the one for the LS1028A? i.e.
"fsl,ls1028ar1-flexcan" followed by "fsl,lx2160ar1-flexcan"
-michael