Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752562AbdHJBBH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:01:07 -0400
Received: from fllnx210.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.17]:24794 "EHLO
        fllnx210.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752174AbdHJBBE (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:01:04 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN
 fixed transceiver bindings
From: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
To: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>,
        <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>,
        <andrew@lunn.ch>, <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
References: <20170803005150.9286-1-fcooper@ti.com>
 <20170803005150.9286-3-fcooper@ti.com>
 <f92513b6-6b2b-e08d-72e2-dedd7e0190f4@cogentembedded.com>
 <3848fab8-ebcf-5b29-7e4e-eb1a2b03803d@ti.com>
 <86d78a36-04c2-7036-636c-7326a4c1c6b0@cogentembedded.com>
 <855a344e-46c4-76c9-331a-848b3a79bf6e@ti.com>
Message-ID: <d059240f-b9bc-3b01-10b0-f8f2d2e04508@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 20:00:11 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <855a344e-46c4-76c9-331a-848b3a79bf6e@ti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [128.247.59.33]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3316
Lines: 91

Hi Sergei,

On 08/03/2017 10:38 AM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/03/2017 07:22 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>> On 08/03/2017 12:48 PM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
>>
>>>>> Add documentation to describe usage of the new fixed transceiver
>>>>> binding.
>>>>> This new binding is applicable for any CAN device therefore it
>>>>> exists as
>>>>> its own document.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    .../bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt         | 24
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>>>>    create mode 100644
>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git
>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..2f58838b
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
>>>>> +Fixed transceiver Device Tree binding
>>>>> +------------------------------
>>>>> +
>>>>> +CAN transceiver typically limits the max speed in standard CAN and
>>>>> CAN FD
>>>>> +modes. Typically these limitations are static and the transceivers
>>>>> themselves
>>>>> +provide no way to detect this limitation at runtime. For this
>>>>> situation,
>>>>> +the "fixed-transceiver" node can be used.
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Required Properties:
>>>>> + max-bitrate:    a positive non 0 value that determines the max
>>>>> +        speed that CAN/CAN-FD can run. Any other value
>>>>> +        will be ignored.
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Examples:
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Based on Texas Instrument's TCAN1042HGV CAN Transceiver
>>>>> +
>>>>> +m_can0 {
>>>>> +    ....
>>>>> +    fixed-transceiver@0 {
>>>>
>>>>     The <unit-address> (after @) must only be specified if there's "reg"
>>>
>>> Sorry. Fixed this in my v2 and some how it came back. Will fix.
>>>
>>>> prop in the device node. Also, please name the node "can-transceiver@"
>>>> to be more in line with the DT spec. which requires generic node names.
>>>
>>> Its possible for future can transceivers drivers to be created. So I
>>
>>    So what? Ah, you are using the node name to match in the CAN drivers...
>>
>>> thought including fixed was important to indicate that this is a "dumb"
>>> transceiver similar to "fixed-link".
>>
>>    I'm not sure the "fixed-link" MAC subnode assumed any transceiver at
>> all...
> 
> Your right. I wasn't trying to imply that it does. What I meant was that
> having a node named "can-transceiver" may be a bit confusing in the
> future if can transceiver drivers are created. Prefix of "fixed" atleast
> to me makes it clear that this is something unique or a generic
> transceiver with limitations. Similar to "fixed-link" which is for MACs
> not connected to MDIO managed phy. Calling this subnode
> "can-transceiver" to me would be like renaming "fixed-link" to "phy".
> 
>>
>>> So would "fixed-can-transceiver" be
>>> ok or do you want to go with can-transceiver?
>>
>>    I'm somewhat perplexed at this point...
> 
> If my reasoning still didn't change your views then I'll make the switch.

I went ahead and made your suggested switch in my v4. Thanks for taking
the time to review this series.
>>
>> MBR, Sergei