On 07/27/2017 01:47 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > On 07/26/2017 08:29 PM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote: >> > >> I'm fine with switching to using bitrate instead of speed. Kurk was >> originally the one that suggested to use the term arbitration and data >> since thats how the spec refers to it. Which I do agree with. But your >> right that in the drivers (struct can_priv) we just use bittiming and >> data_bittiming (CAN-FD timings). I don't think adding "fd" into the >> property name makes sense unless we are calling it something like >> "max-canfd-bitrate" which I would agree is the easiest to understand. >> >> So what is the preference if we end up sticking with two properties? >> Option 1 or 2? >> >> 1) >> max-bitrate >> max-data-bitrate >> >> 2) >> max-bitrate >> max-canfd-bitrate >> >> > > 1 > >>> A CAN transceiver is limited in bandwidth. But you only have one RX and >>> one TX line between the CAN controller and the CAN transceiver. The >>> transceiver does not know about CAN FD - it has just a physical(!) layer >>> with a limited bandwidth. This is ONE limitation. >>> >>> So I tend to specify only ONE 'max-bitrate' property for the >>> fixed-transceiver binding. >>> >>> The fact whether the CAN controller is CAN FD capable or not is provided >>> by the netlink configuration interface for CAN controllers. >> >> Part of the reasoning to have two properties is to indicate that you >> don't support CAN FD while limiting the "arbitration" bit rate. > > ?? > > It's a physical layer device which only has a bandwidth limitation. > The transceiver does not know about CAN FD. > >> With one >> property you can not determine this and end up having to make some >> assumptions that can quickly end up biting people. > > Despite the fact that the transceiver does not know anything about ISO > layer 2 (CAN/CAN FD) the properties should look like > > max-bitrate > canfd-capable > > then. > > But when the tranceiver is 'canfd-capable' agnostic, why provide a > property for it? > > Maybe I'm wrong but I still can't follow your argumentation ideas.
Your right. I spoke to our CAN transceiver team and I finally get your points. So yes using "max-bitrate" alone is all we need. Sorry for the confusion and I'll create a new rev using this approach. > > Regards, > Oliver
