ctucan top level compoenets names.
can_top_ahb, can_top_apb and can_top_level files and components should be renamed probably.
It is incorrect to claim can_ prefix name for components by CTU CAN FD project.
I suggest to change toplevel to ctucan_top_level etc.
If there is clean option how to keep different name for packaged IP core and implementing VHDL design component then it is not critical. In the fact, I would prefer to use even ctucanfd_ prefix, because IP core is limited to FD functionality in current form and for CAN XL different layout of TX buffers would be required. On the other hand, if ctucan_ is forked and then FD and XL branches are updated sometimes independently, sometimes by cherry picking or in sync then the common toplevel component name can help. So the preference between ctucanfd_ and ctucan_ is questionable. But use of ctucan_ instead of can_ is critical to update Vivado component which uses CTU_CAN_FD_v1_0 matching past integration mechanisms.
I am not sure if the version should be included or not. Vivado prefers version. It makes sense to integrate and compare behavior of two versions of the same core in single testbed/design. But from the GIT source versioning renaming the file is bad. For component name it makes problems to users but on the other had alarms user when fundamental change happens. So this is questionable.