On 24.04.2023 08:56:03, Dario Binacchi wrote:
> > This probably works. Can we do better, i.e. without this additional code?
> >
> > If you add a syscon node for the single instance CAN, too, you don't
> > need a code change here, right?
> 
> I think so.
> 
> 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

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