On 11/03/2015 11:36 AM, Aleksander Morgado wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >>>> I was thinking about this and I mostly agree with you. Obviously, copying >>>> the code this way was dumb. On the other hand, ARINC and CAN are two >>>> different sort of busses, so I'd propose something slightly different >>>> here to avoid confusion and prevent the future extensions (or protocols) >>>> from adding unrelated cruft into the CAN stack.
> I'd keep them separate not because ARINC may add unrelated cruft into > the CAN stack, but because ARINC is much simpler than CAN already... What about maintainability? Why take care of two almost identical subsystems? With making one stack "simpler" you increase, from my point of view, the costs of maintaining even more. If you fix problems in one stack you have to adopt the other, too. Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
