Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:15:35PM +0100, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > >>> Who want's to use can-raw in J1939 environments then? > In my perception, J1939 clearly specifies 11bit is allowed on its bus, > but not handled by J1939. Although this info is from 8 years back or so.
Yes, it is like this. My question should be seen as "Who want's to use can-raw in J1939-only environments then?" :-) >> that's like asking: who want's to use ethernet in IP environments? >> It's not forbidden. But sticking to j1939 keeps you from mistakes >> against the j1939 protocol. > rather innocent phrase, but it makes me think I should go for a seperate > address family, just as IP is seperated from ethernet. > I understand it means some extra work, but looking at af_can.c must help > a great deal. > I consider this a wild idea, but I do not find where it is wrong. IMO creating a PF_J1939 goes far beyond the users needs. As you know usually J1939 implementations are completely running in userspace ... and people are also happy with that. J1939 is 'just one definition' of what you can do with CAN frames. Therefore putting some of it's (timecritical & segmenting) functionalities inside the kernel in a new protocol inside PF_CAN is the appropriate way, IMO. Regards, Oliver _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
