Hi Marek, On 03/01/2016 10:23 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 03/01/2016 06:49 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>> -#define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_STD_MASK 0x3ff >>> +#define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_STD_MASK 0x7ff >>> #define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_XTD_MASK 0x1fffffff >> >> You should use the CAN_SFF_MASK and CAN_EFF_MASK in your code instead of >> defining you private IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_?TD_MASK definitions. >> >> You won't have trapped into this problem then :-) > > These are register bitfield definitions, so should I really ? > > My OCD kicks in and tells me it'd be odd and inconsistent with the rest > of the bitfields, but if you prefer it that way, I'll just send an > updated patch. > Your bit mask is masking the CAN ID out of a given variable. That's what CAN_SFF_MASK and CAN_EFF_MASK is made for. So at least it should be: #define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_STD_MASK CAN_SFF_MASK #define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_XTD_MASK CAN_EFF_MASK Btw. These defines are _never_ referenced in ifi_canfd.c so they should be removed anyway. Regards, Oliver
