On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Is that really true. The manual states that an interrupt is generated
> when the TXREQ bit will be cleared, which is the case for OSM after the
> message has been sent. Otherwise it's a bad design flaw. But I might
> have misinterpreted chapter 3.3. It would make sense to contact National
> Instruments.
>
I think you meant Microchip instead of NS. If you check the flowchart
on page in the pdf 21801e.pdf ("FIGURE 3-1: TRANSMIT MESSAGE
FLOWCHART") the MLOA path has no interrupt generated. This explains
what Paul is seeing. Unfortunately right now I have just a mcp2510
available (I should get a design with two mcp2515 soon, but soon is a
relative concept for hardwerists ;-) ), so I cannot check.
>>> Then i would tend to remove the OSM functionality as long as the driver is
>>> not
>>> able to handle the descibed problem in OSM mode on the bus.
>
> Yes, or at least do not add additional code. We need some more
> experience with one-shot mode ..
>
exactly, as soon I have the needed hardware I will give it a try. For
now I'll keep a separate patch that has the ugly loop as the workqueue
that reschedules itself.
--
Christian Pellegrin, see http://www.evolware.org/chri/
"Real Programmers don't play tennis, or any other sport which requires
you to change clothes. Mountain climbing is OK, and Real Programmers
wear their climbing boots to work in case a mountain should suddenly
spring up in the middle of the computer room."
_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
