[PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: ls1028a: add missing CAN nodes

[Michael Walle]

Am 2020-09-24 02:35, schrieb Leo Li:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Walle <michael at walle.cc>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 4:57 AM
>> To: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; devicetree at vger.kernel.org; 
>> linux-
>> kernel at vger.kernel.org; linux-can at vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo at kernel.org>; Leo Li <leoyang.li at nxp.com>; Rob
>> Herring <robh+dt at kernel.org>; Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl at pengutronix.de>;
>> Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang at nxp.com>; Michael Walle
>> <michael at walle.cc>
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: ls1028a: add missing CAN nodes
>> 
>> The LS1028A has two FlexCAN controller. These are compatible with the 
>> ones
>> from the LX2160A. Add the nodes.
>> 
>> The first controller was tested on the Kontron sl28 board.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael at walle.cc>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi | 18 
>> ++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
>> index 0efeb8fa773e..807ee921ec12 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
>> @@ -386,6 +386,24 @@
>>  			status = "disabled";
>>  		};
>> 
>> +		can0: can at 2180000 {
>> +			compatible = "fsl,ls1028ar1-flexcan", "fsl,lx2160ar1-
>> flexcan";
> 
> The explicit compatible strings cannot be found in the binding, but
> matched by the "fsl,<processor>-flexcan" pattern in the binding.  Is
> this considered to be acceptable now?

What is the consequence if it is not acceptable? replacing the pattern
with individual compatible strings?

-michael