From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8067C2D0DB for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:45:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792CD2467F for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:45:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="xA6ob+SJ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728760AbgAWLpH (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:45:07 -0500 Received: from fllv0015.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.141]:51394 "EHLO fllv0015.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729027AbgAWLpG (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:45:06 -0500 Received: from fllv0035.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.0]) by fllv0015.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 00NBijAB129984; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 05:44:45 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1579779885; bh=QnJ9VUHPpMMd8YUAGeL/71FiTwnavEbizZbc/dCqjBQ=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=xA6ob+SJdg7zfXn7hlg2ASxYri8hGEOhWPfgeB83gcf3pZOhdMBigo2kRnsAhiTIn VfSfH3quOr7/RiJPl70v28p2MY0hvYXEfwVQLJ79oo54UxHGb6Andxc3oUcdUX67V5 SGrYv56ow2oBNw/v7YNv+bv/yF6EDuQExoEVS+xs= Received: from DFLE105.ent.ti.com (dfle105.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.26]) by fllv0035.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 00NBiiMB060474; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 05:44:44 -0600 Received: from DFLE107.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.28) by DFLE105.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1847.3; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 05:44:44 -0600 Received: from fllv0039.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.19) by DFLE107.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1847.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 05:44:44 -0600 Received: from [172.24.190.4] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0039.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 00NBienv047691; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 05:44:40 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add Support for MCAN in AM654x-idk To: Marc Kleine-Budde , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , , References: <20200122080310.24653-1-faiz_abbas@ti.com> From: Faiz Abbas Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 17:16:10 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Marc, On 23/01/20 4:47 pm, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 1/22/20 9:03 AM, Faiz Abbas wrote: >> This series adds driver patches to support MCAN in TI's AM654x-idk. >> >> Faiz Abbas (3): >> dt-bindings: net: can: m_can: Add Documentation for stb-gpios >> can: m_can: m_can_platform: Add support for enabling transceiver >> through the STB line >> arm64: defconfig: Add Support for Bosch M_CAN controllers >> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/m_can.txt | 2 ++ >> arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 3 +++ >> drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can_platform.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+) > > What about adding support for xceiver-supply as done in several other > drivers (ti_hecc.c, flexcan.c, mcp251x.c)? And using this for the stb line? Looks like you had given this feedback a long time ago and I forgot about it. Sorry about that :-) https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1006238/ But now that I think about it, its kinda weird that we are modelling part of the transceiver as a separate child node (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/can-transceiver.txt) and the other parts as a regulator. Anyone looking at the transceiver node would figure thats where the enable gpio/regulator node needs to go instead of the parent node. Shouldn't we have all transceiver properties under the same node? Thanks, Faiz