On 07/03/2014 11:09 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:04:36AM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>> On 07/03/2014 10:48 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:12:49AM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2014 05:48 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:13:07PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/02/2014 07:54 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm not really familiar with the naming concept in device trees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is your opinion about the remarks below?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The entries in the DT, at least on freescale baords, follow the naming
>>>>>> scheme of the reference manual. E.g. on the mx25 it's can1 and can2:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     can1: can@43f88000 { ... }
>>>>>>     can2: can@43f8c000 { ... }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And on the mx28, its:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     can0: can@80032000 { ... }
>>>>>>     can1: can@80034000 { ... }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the imx25 datasheet uses a "1" based counting scheme, while the
>>>>>> imx28 uses a "0" based one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it's best practise to follow the naming and numbering scheme of the
>>>>>> hardware reference manual.....and if you have access to the
>>>>>> documentation of the m_can core, use clock names of the m_can core for
>>>>>> the clock-names property.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on my knowledge, device tree allows define phandle name according to
>>>>> the real device name of HW according spec while the device node name should
>>>>> be general(e.g can@80032000 rather than flexcan@80032000).
>>>>> For imx6sx, there are already following entries in
>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sx.dtsi
>>>>> flexcan1: can@02090000 {...}
>>>>> flexcan2: can@02094000 {...}
>>>>> So i'd prefer to define as:
>>>>> m_can1: canfd@020e8000 {...}
>>>>> m_can2: canfd@020f0000 {...}
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One problem is there're can alias already.
>>>>> aliases {
>>>>> 	can0 = &flexcan1;
>>>>> 	can1 = &flexcan2;
>>>>> 	...
>>>>> }
>>>>> I'm not sure adding can2&can3 for mcan is properly:
>>>>> aliases {
>>>>> 	can0 = &flexcan1;
>>>>> 	can1 = &flexcan2;
>>>>> 	can2 = &m_can1;
>>>>> 	can3 = &m_can2;
>>>>> 	...
>>>>> }
>>>>> Since the m_can driver does not need to use aliases,
>>>>> so i will not add them.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO It's fine too add the can{2,3} aliases to m_can, too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the main problem for doing this way is that the meaning of id
>>> return by of_alias_get_id may be not persistent.
>>> e.g
>>> For MX6SX
>>> aliases {
>>> 	can0 = &flexcan1;
>>> 	can1 = &flexcan2;
>>> 	can2 = &m_can1;
>>> 	can3 = &m_can2;
>>> 	...
>>> }
>>>
>>> For other platform, it could be:
>>> aliases {
>>> 	can0 = &m_can1;
>>> 	can1 = &m_can2;
>>> 	...
>>> }
>>> It's hard for driver to use.
>>
>> The driver doesn't make use of it, does it?
>>
>>> And actually the M_CAN driver does not need to use the alias.
>>> So i wonder if it makes sense to add the alias for m_can devices
>>> like that.
>>
>> For example the imx53 has two different SPI units, in the alias section
>> we see:
>>
>>                 spi0 = &ecspi1;
>>                 spi1 = &ecspi2;
>>                 spi2 = &cspi;
> 
> Thanks for the info.
> I'm not clear what's our purpose adding alias like this?
> Can you help explain it a bit?

You can use the alias in your dts to refer to the node instead of the
more complicate name. Further you bring a order to all devices of the
same type and you can make use of the number in the alias for other
purposes, which is however not used for CAN afaik.

> Do we need adding alias for all exist devices?

Have a look at the existing imx*.dtsi files. If there are already
aliases for a given device type, then it makes sense to add new devices
of that type to the alias aswell.

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |