Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] can: fixed-transceiver: Add documentation for CAN
 fixed transceiver bindings
To: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
References: <20170724230521.1436-1-fcooper@ti.com>
 <20170724230521.1436-3-fcooper@ti.com> <20170726164124.GL12049@lunn.ch>
 <355b90b3-97ce-1057-6617-d5d709449c48@hartkopp.net>
 <a77fe395-33c7-9405-b51a-5d3372e5c58b@ti.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-can@vger.kernel.org, wg@grandegger.com,
        mkl@pengutronix.de, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        quentin.schulz@free-electrons.com, dev.kurt@vandijck-laurijssen.be,
        sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
Message-ID: <fe99189e-d077-ba65-4dfc-a4d8beee62b3@hartkopp.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 20:47:37 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a77fe395-33c7-9405-b51a-5d3372e5c58b@ti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1969
Lines: 64

On 07/26/2017 08:29 PM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
>

> I'm fine with switching to using bitrate instead of speed. Kurk was
> originally the one that suggested to use the term arbitration and data
> since thats how the spec refers to it. Which I do agree with. But your
> right that in the drivers (struct can_priv) we just use bittiming and
> data_bittiming (CAN-FD timings). I don't think adding "fd" into the
> property name makes sense unless we are calling it something like
> "max-canfd-bitrate" which I would agree is the easiest to understand.
>
> So what is the preference if we end up sticking with two properties?
> Option 1 or 2?
>
> 1)
> max-bitrate
> max-data-bitrate
>
> 2)
> max-bitrate
> max-canfd-bitrate
>
>

1

>> A CAN transceiver is limited in bandwidth. But you only have one RX and
>> one TX line between the CAN controller and the CAN transceiver. The
>> transceiver does not know about CAN FD - it has just a physical(!) layer
>> with a limited bandwidth. This is ONE limitation.
>>
>> So I tend to specify only ONE 'max-bitrate' property for the
>> fixed-transceiver binding.
>>
>> The fact whether the CAN controller is CAN FD capable or not is provided
>> by the netlink configuration interface for CAN controllers.
>
> Part of the reasoning to have two properties is to indicate that you
> don't support CAN FD while limiting the "arbitration" bit rate.

??

It's a physical layer device which only has a bandwidth limitation.
The transceiver does not know about CAN FD.

> With one
> property you can not determine this and end up having to make some
> assumptions that can quickly end up biting people.

Despite the fact that the transceiver does not know anything about ISO 
layer 2 (CAN/CAN FD) the properties should look like

	max-bitrate
	canfd-capable

then.

But when the tranceiver is 'canfd-capable' agnostic, why provide a 
property for it?

Maybe I'm wrong but I still can't follow your argumentation ideas.

Regards,
Oliver