On 2007-06-28, Gary Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> I'm about to develop a raw ethernet driver. After spending
>>>> quite a lot of time reading the forum and analyzing the code I
>>>> finally decide to implement a raw I/O API as suggested by
>>>> Grant Edwards here:
>>>
>>>> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/ecos-discuss/2003-06/msg00017.html
>>>
>>> What's the point of this? Couldn't you solve your problem by
>>> using RAW sockets?
Yes, if RAW sockets were supported by eCos.
>>> The reason for asking is just to point out that your ethernet
>>> "wire" will be pretty useless except for whatever raw traffic
>>> you push across it.
No, the raw I/O API peacefully coexists with the normal network
stack API. All network traffic that doesn't use the configured
proprietary Ethernet protocol number works the same as always.
>> Could you plase be more precise? I don't thing I got your
>> question, I thought that the version of FreeBSD on eCos didn't
>> implement RAW sockets. Or at least that's what I understood
>> from previous threads here. Am I wrong?
>
> Indeed, RAW sockets are not [currently] implemented. My
> question was what do you need that RAW sockets cannot provide?
> I think it would be a *much* simpler task to get RAW sockets
> working within the existing stack than to write your own
> networking layer.
It's a pretty thin layer -- it just allows you to queue up
outbout packets with cyg_io_write() and read from a queue of
inboung packets (with a specified protocol type) using
cyg_io_read().
Using RAW sockets would be nice, but adding a little code to an
in-house driver is logistically easier than adding raw socket
support to an "off-the-shelf" network stack and then turning
around and doing it all again a couple years later when the
network stack changes.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Now that I have my
at "APPLE", I comprehend COST
visi.com ACCOUNTING!!
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
