[PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: can: rockchip: add rk3588v2 CAN-FD compatible

[Marc Kleine-Budde]

On 02.07.2026 16:17:25, Cunhao Lu wrote:
> > And why is this different from rk3588?
>
> The reason I used rk3588v2 is that this is how the controller identifies
> itself at runtime:

There are 2 silicon revision (v2 and v3) of the rk3568 available on the
market. The v2 has several errata in the CAN-FD core, the v3 has some of
them fixed...

>   rockchip_canfd fea60000.can can0: Rockchip-CANFD rk3588v2 rev2.2 (errata 0x0000) found
>   rockchip_canfd fea70000.can can1: Rockchip-CANFD rk3588v2 rev2.2 (errata 0x0000) found

However, the version register _in_ the CAN-FD was not changed. :/
This is why we have a rockchip,rk3568v2-canfd and a
rockchip,rk3568v3-canfd compatible.

> I also checked Rockchip's vendor kernel 6.1 sources. The RK3588 DTS uses
> the binding name "rockchip,can-2.0" for these controllers, while the
> upstream driver has SoC-specific compatibles for the Rockchip CAN-FD IP.
> That is why I chose the SoC/IP variant name rockchip,rk3588v2-canfd.
>
> If the preferred binding name is rockchip,rk3588-canfd instead, I can
> change the compatible in v2.

Yes, please use rockchip,rk3588-canfd, unless we get information from
rockchips about CAN-FD errata and SoC silicon revisions.

regards,
Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde          |
Embedded Linux                   | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung Nürnberg              | Phone: +49-5121-206917-129 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9   |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20260702/51e068e8/attachment.sig>