Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: can: xilinx_can: Add ECC property ‘xlnx,has-ecc’

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 14/06/2023 13:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 14/06/2023 12:22, Goud, Srinivas wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 1:23 PM
>>> To: Goud, Srinivas <srinivas.goud@amd.com>
>>> Cc: wg@grandegger.com; davem@davemloft.net; edumazet@google.com;
>>> kuba@kernel.org; pabeni@redhat.com; gcnu.goud@gmail.com; git (AMD-
>>> Xilinx) <git@amd.com>; michal.simek@xilinx.com; linux-can@vger.kernel.org;
>>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: can: xilinx_can: Add ECC property
>>> ‘xlnx,has-ecc’
>>>
>>> On 12.06.2023 17:12:55, Srinivas Goud wrote:
>>>> ECC feature added to Tx and Rx FIFO’s for Xilinx CAN Controller.
>>>> Part of this feature configuration and counter registers added in IP
>>>> for 1bit/2bit ECC errors.
>>>> Please find more details in PG096 v5.1 document.
>>>>
>>>> xlnx,has-ecc is optional property and added to Xilinx CAN Controller
>>>> node if ECC block enabled in the HW.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Goud <srinivas.goud@amd.com>
>>>
>>> Is there a way to introspect the IP core to check if this feature is compiled in?
>> There is no way(IP registers) to indicate whether ECC feature is enabled or not.
> 
> Isn't this then deductible from compatible? Your binding claims it is
> only for AXI CAN, so xlnx,axi-can-1.00.a, even though you did not
> restrict it in the binding.

BTW, this is not an ACK, because this was not tested by automation. I
don't understand why get_maintainers.pl are so tricky to use, but
nevertheless I require resend to satisfy automation.

Best regards,
Krzysztof