Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1702595 > unrolled thread

[PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings

Started byFranklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
First post2017-08-03 03:00 +0200
Last post2017-08-10 03:10 +0200
Articles 6 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com> - 2017-08-03 03:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN  fixed transceiver bindings Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> - 2017-08-03 11:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN  fixed transceiver bindings Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com> - 2017-08-03 13:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN  fixed transceiver bindings Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> - 2017-08-03 14:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN  fixed transceiver bindings Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com> - 2017-08-03 18:40 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN  fixed transceiver bindings Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com> - 2017-08-10 03:10 +0200

#1702595 — [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings

FromFranklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
Date2017-08-03 03:00 +0200
Subject[PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings
Message-ID<uacEy-Fh-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Add documentation to describe usage of the new fixed transceiver binding.
This new binding is applicable for any CAN device therefore it exists as
its own document.

Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
---
 .../bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt         | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2f58838b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+Fixed transceiver Device Tree binding
+------------------------------
+
+CAN transceiver typically limits the max speed in standard CAN and CAN FD
+modes. Typically these limitations are static and the transceivers themselves
+provide no way to detect this limitation at runtime. For this situation,
+the "fixed-transceiver" node can be used.
+
+Required Properties:
+ max-bitrate:	a positive non 0 value that determines the max
+		speed that CAN/CAN-FD can run. Any other value
+		will be ignored.
+
+Examples:
+
+Based on Texas Instrument's TCAN1042HGV CAN Transceiver
+
+m_can0 {
+	....
+	fixed-transceiver@0 {
+		max-bitrate = <5000000>;
+	};
+	...
+};
-- 
2.9.4.dirty

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1702821 — Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings

FromSergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Date2017-08-03 11:20 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings
Message-ID<uaksr-6mu-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1702595
Hello!

On 8/3/2017 3:51 AM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:

> Add documentation to describe usage of the new fixed transceiver binding.
> This new binding is applicable for any CAN device therefore it exists as
> its own document.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
> ---
>   .../bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt         | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..2f58838b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
> +Fixed transceiver Device Tree binding
> +------------------------------
> +
> +CAN transceiver typically limits the max speed in standard CAN and CAN FD
> +modes. Typically these limitations are static and the transceivers themselves
> +provide no way to detect this limitation at runtime. For this situation,
> +the "fixed-transceiver" node can be used.
> +
> +Required Properties:
> + max-bitrate:	a positive non 0 value that determines the max
> +		speed that CAN/CAN-FD can run. Any other value
> +		will be ignored.
> +
> +Examples:
> +
> +Based on Texas Instrument's TCAN1042HGV CAN Transceiver
> +
> +m_can0 {
> +	....
> +	fixed-transceiver@0 {

    The <unit-address> (after @) must only be specified if there's "reg" prop 
in the device node. Also, please name the node "can-transceiver@" to be more 
in line with the DT spec. which requires generic node names.

[...]

MBR, Sergei

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1702979 — Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings

FromFranklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
Date2017-08-03 13:50 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings
Message-ID<uamNA-7Pj-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1702821

On 08/03/2017 04:18 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On 8/3/2017 3:51 AM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
> 
>> Add documentation to describe usage of the new fixed transceiver binding.
>> This new binding is applicable for any CAN device therefore it exists as
>> its own document.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
>> ---
>>   .../bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt         | 24
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>
>> diff --git
>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..2f58838b
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
>> +Fixed transceiver Device Tree binding
>> +------------------------------
>> +
>> +CAN transceiver typically limits the max speed in standard CAN and
>> CAN FD
>> +modes. Typically these limitations are static and the transceivers
>> themselves
>> +provide no way to detect this limitation at runtime. For this situation,
>> +the "fixed-transceiver" node can be used.
>> +
>> +Required Properties:
>> + max-bitrate:    a positive non 0 value that determines the max
>> +        speed that CAN/CAN-FD can run. Any other value
>> +        will be ignored.
>> +
>> +Examples:
>> +
>> +Based on Texas Instrument's TCAN1042HGV CAN Transceiver
>> +
>> +m_can0 {
>> +    ....
>> +    fixed-transceiver@0 {
> 
>    The <unit-address> (after @) must only be specified if there's "reg"

Sorry. Fixed this in my v2 and some how it came back. Will fix.

> prop in the device node. Also, please name the node "can-transceiver@"
> to be more in line with the DT spec. which requires generic node names.

Its possible for future can transceivers drivers to be created. So I
thought including fixed was important to indicate that this is a "dumb"
transceiver similar to "fixed-link". So would "fixed-can-transceiver" be
ok or do you want to go with can-transceiver?
> 
> [...]

> 
> MBR, Sergei

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1703054 — Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings

FromSergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Date2017-08-03 14:30 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings
Message-ID<uanqj-8kg-53@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1702979
On 08/03/2017 12:48 PM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:

>>> Add documentation to describe usage of the new fixed transceiver binding.
>>> This new binding is applicable for any CAN device therefore it exists as
>>> its own document.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>>    .../bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt         | 24
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>>    create mode 100644
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>>
>>> diff --git
>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..2f58838b
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
>>> +Fixed transceiver Device Tree binding
>>> +------------------------------
>>> +
>>> +CAN transceiver typically limits the max speed in standard CAN and
>>> CAN FD
>>> +modes. Typically these limitations are static and the transceivers
>>> themselves
>>> +provide no way to detect this limitation at runtime. For this situation,
>>> +the "fixed-transceiver" node can be used.
>>> +
>>> +Required Properties:
>>> + max-bitrate:    a positive non 0 value that determines the max
>>> +        speed that CAN/CAN-FD can run. Any other value
>>> +        will be ignored.
>>> +
>>> +Examples:
>>> +
>>> +Based on Texas Instrument's TCAN1042HGV CAN Transceiver
>>> +
>>> +m_can0 {
>>> +    ....
>>> +    fixed-transceiver@0 {
>>
>>     The <unit-address> (after @) must only be specified if there's "reg"
> 
> Sorry. Fixed this in my v2 and some how it came back. Will fix.
> 
>> prop in the device node. Also, please name the node "can-transceiver@"
>> to be more in line with the DT spec. which requires generic node names.
> 
> Its possible for future can transceivers drivers to be created. So I

    So what? Ah, you are using the node name to match in the CAN drivers...

> thought including fixed was important to indicate that this is a "dumb"
> transceiver similar to "fixed-link".

    I'm not sure the "fixed-link" MAC subnode assumed any transceiver at all...

> So would "fixed-can-transceiver" be
> ok or do you want to go with can-transceiver?

    I'm somewhat perplexed at this point...

MBR, Sergei

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1703266 — Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings

FromFranklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
Date2017-08-03 18:40 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings
Message-ID<uarkf-2yP-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1703054

On 08/03/2017 07:22 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 08/03/2017 12:48 PM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
> 
>>>> Add documentation to describe usage of the new fixed transceiver
>>>> binding.
>>>> This new binding is applicable for any CAN device therefore it
>>>> exists as
>>>> its own document.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    .../bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt         | 24
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>>>    create mode 100644
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>>>
>>>> diff --git
>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..2f58838b
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
>>>> +Fixed transceiver Device Tree binding
>>>> +------------------------------
>>>> +
>>>> +CAN transceiver typically limits the max speed in standard CAN and
>>>> CAN FD
>>>> +modes. Typically these limitations are static and the transceivers
>>>> themselves
>>>> +provide no way to detect this limitation at runtime. For this
>>>> situation,
>>>> +the "fixed-transceiver" node can be used.
>>>> +
>>>> +Required Properties:
>>>> + max-bitrate:    a positive non 0 value that determines the max
>>>> +        speed that CAN/CAN-FD can run. Any other value
>>>> +        will be ignored.
>>>> +
>>>> +Examples:
>>>> +
>>>> +Based on Texas Instrument's TCAN1042HGV CAN Transceiver
>>>> +
>>>> +m_can0 {
>>>> +    ....
>>>> +    fixed-transceiver@0 {
>>>
>>>     The <unit-address> (after @) must only be specified if there's "reg"
>>
>> Sorry. Fixed this in my v2 and some how it came back. Will fix.
>>
>>> prop in the device node. Also, please name the node "can-transceiver@"
>>> to be more in line with the DT spec. which requires generic node names.
>>
>> Its possible for future can transceivers drivers to be created. So I
> 
>    So what? Ah, you are using the node name to match in the CAN drivers...
> 
>> thought including fixed was important to indicate that this is a "dumb"
>> transceiver similar to "fixed-link".
> 
>    I'm not sure the "fixed-link" MAC subnode assumed any transceiver at
> all...

Your right. I wasn't trying to imply that it does. What I meant was that
having a node named "can-transceiver" may be a bit confusing in the
future if can transceiver drivers are created. Prefix of "fixed" atleast
to me makes it clear that this is something unique or a generic
transceiver with limitations. Similar to "fixed-link" which is for MACs
not connected to MDIO managed phy. Calling this subnode
"can-transceiver" to me would be like renaming "fixed-link" to "phy".

> 
>> So would "fixed-can-transceiver" be
>> ok or do you want to go with can-transceiver?
> 
>    I'm somewhat perplexed at this point...

If my reasoning still didn't change your views then I'll make the switch.
> 
> MBR, Sergei

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1708114 — Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings

FromFranklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
Date2017-08-10 03:10 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: can: fixed-transceiver: Add new CAN fixed transceiver bindings
Message-ID<ucK94-704-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1703266
Hi Sergei,

On 08/03/2017 10:38 AM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/03/2017 07:22 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>> On 08/03/2017 12:48 PM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
>>
>>>>> Add documentation to describe usage of the new fixed transceiver
>>>>> binding.
>>>>> This new binding is applicable for any CAN device therefore it
>>>>> exists as
>>>>> its own document.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    .../bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt         | 24
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>>>>    create mode 100644
>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git
>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..2f58838b
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/fixed-transceiver.txt
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
>>>>> +Fixed transceiver Device Tree binding
>>>>> +------------------------------
>>>>> +
>>>>> +CAN transceiver typically limits the max speed in standard CAN and
>>>>> CAN FD
>>>>> +modes. Typically these limitations are static and the transceivers
>>>>> themselves
>>>>> +provide no way to detect this limitation at runtime. For this
>>>>> situation,
>>>>> +the "fixed-transceiver" node can be used.
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Required Properties:
>>>>> + max-bitrate:    a positive non 0 value that determines the max
>>>>> +        speed that CAN/CAN-FD can run. Any other value
>>>>> +        will be ignored.
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Examples:
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Based on Texas Instrument's TCAN1042HGV CAN Transceiver
>>>>> +
>>>>> +m_can0 {
>>>>> +    ....
>>>>> +    fixed-transceiver@0 {
>>>>
>>>>     The <unit-address> (after @) must only be specified if there's "reg"
>>>
>>> Sorry. Fixed this in my v2 and some how it came back. Will fix.
>>>
>>>> prop in the device node. Also, please name the node "can-transceiver@"
>>>> to be more in line with the DT spec. which requires generic node names.
>>>
>>> Its possible for future can transceivers drivers to be created. So I
>>
>>    So what? Ah, you are using the node name to match in the CAN drivers...
>>
>>> thought including fixed was important to indicate that this is a "dumb"
>>> transceiver similar to "fixed-link".
>>
>>    I'm not sure the "fixed-link" MAC subnode assumed any transceiver at
>> all...
> 
> Your right. I wasn't trying to imply that it does. What I meant was that
> having a node named "can-transceiver" may be a bit confusing in the
> future if can transceiver drivers are created. Prefix of "fixed" atleast
> to me makes it clear that this is something unique or a generic
> transceiver with limitations. Similar to "fixed-link" which is for MACs
> not connected to MDIO managed phy. Calling this subnode
> "can-transceiver" to me would be like renaming "fixed-link" to "phy".
> 
>>
>>> So would "fixed-can-transceiver" be
>>> ok or do you want to go with can-transceiver?
>>
>>    I'm somewhat perplexed at this point...
> 
> If my reasoning still didn't change your views then I'll make the switch.

I went ahead and made your suggested switch in my v4. Thanks for taking
the time to review this series.
>>
>> MBR, Sergei

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web