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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 16/06/2023 12:44, Michal Simek wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/16/23 12:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 16/06/2023 12:13, Goud, Srinivas wrote:
>>>>>>> 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 at 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.
>>> Agree it is only for AXI CAN(xlnx,axi-can-1.00.a) but ECC feature is
>>> configurable option to the user.
>>> ECC is added as optional configuration(enable/disable) feature
>>> to the existing AXI CAN.
>>
>> Why boards would like not to have ECC? I understand that someone told
>> you "make it configurable in DTS", but that's not really a reason for
>> us. Why this is suitable for DTS?
> 
> Let me jump to this. This is core for programmable logic where HW designers of 
> this IP added couple of feature which can be enabled or disable based on 
> customer need. It means it is not SW option if ECC is enable but it is HW choice 
> if ECC is present in the HW or not.
> Selection if ECC should be used is up to every customer to decide.
> We are not able to get information why customers choosing ECC enabled/disabled 
> but I can imagine that with ECC disable less fpga resources are used.

Thanks for the explanation. Apologies for being picky, but you are in
minority when adding such properties with true hardware meaning. Most of
the submissions of such properties add them to control the bits in register.

Best regards,
Krzysztof