Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 24 Apr 2023 12:06:28 +0200
From:   Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
To:     Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Amarula patchwork <linux-amarula@amarulasolutions.com>,
        michael@amarulasolutions.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>,
        linux-can@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] can: bxcan: add support for single peripheral
 configuration
Message-ID: <20230424-fracture-going-5dcaf06a9e6c-mkl@pengutronix.de>
References: <20230423172528.1398158-1-dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com>
 <20230423172528.1398158-5-dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com>
 <20230423-surplus-spoon-4e8194434663-mkl@pengutronix.de>
 <CABGWkvqA2hwgfGvVWS08Qu-2ZUbwc82ynhvq8-FqFuhHoV-vhw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nlfwcmgjkz5caxu3"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABGWkvqA2hwgfGvVWS08Qu-2ZUbwc82ynhvq8-FqFuhHoV-vhw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


--nlfwcmgjkz5caxu3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 24.04.2023 08:56:03, Dario Binacchi wrote:
> > This probably works. Can we do better, i.e. without this additional cod=
e?
> >
> > If you add a syscon node for the single instance CAN, too, you don't
> > need a code change here, right?
>=20
> I think so.
>=20
> I have only one doubt about it. This implementation allows,
> implicitly, to distinguish if the peripheral is in single
> configuration (without handle to the gcan node) or in double
> configuration (with handle to the gcan node). For example, in single
> configuration the peripheral has 14 filter banks, while in double
> configuration there are 26 shared banks. Without code changes, this
> kind of information is lost. Is it better then, for future
> developments, to add a new boolean property to the can node of the dts
> (e.g. single-conf)?

The DT ist not yet mainline, so we can still change it. Another option
is to have "st,can-primary" and "st,can-secondary" for the shared
peripherals and nothing for the single instance.

regards,
Marc

--=20
Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde          |
Embedded Linux                   | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung N=C3=BCrnberg              | Phone: +49-5121-206917-129 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9   |

--nlfwcmgjkz5caxu3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEDs2BvajyNKlf9TJQvlAcSiqKBOgFAmRGVKIACgkQvlAcSiqK
BOhkmwf/fVsu1OGCtagGs762m2UGMM/F1PtRokDn3Tcnq/TQBj4sCNJ6zYtz9sfX
kk1N7j3IpnOzDGeoR4UaeTzxg3Eu5dHoLsFGoka0mHd3RsOvbL4PO0UFAWAjv8lQ
ys32uN6DHtSPHCOWhCWbDxaO+7ebiEXoyCmf8NGYwYBMzOnTSDl13uPTKgo/l60t
2JJFQwbFbmhE9BBxkRKfWuN6VuyO5X0XdQl880tUiWZ8PkUQDwYrTnKYnNE8MIxC
xGoAmo1WKnPGCA8HB+878bgQ/Vf8/fMsUZJezFCN8sZ0QGGwo6HKq4MRSJ+Dse40
d/tLDEVGvEa0iVfBmaswhHr+jLd0lg==
=Ifbf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nlfwcmgjkz5caxu3--