On 03/02/2016 07:10 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > 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
This is good, I will do this. Thanks! > Btw. These defines are _never_ referenced in ifi_canfd.c so they should be > removed anyway. The documentation for this core is not available, so if you don't mind, I'd like to keep those. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
