> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:socketcan-core-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Oliver Hartkopp
> Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:38 PM
> To: Kurt Van Dijck
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: struct sockaddr_can for j1939
> 
> 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.
I second that, I know people doing this (J1939 userspace library) and they
are using cansocket as low level driver.


> 
> 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.

IMO, I wouldn't touch the PF_CAN or I would just put inside PF_CAN only what
cannot be done in userspace like critical timing.
In fact, maybe I would try some Real-Time kernel variant before trying to
modify socketcan to solve timing problems (50ms are not hard to meet).

Cheers!,

Leandro Gentili

> Regards,
> Oliver
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Socketcan-core mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core

_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core

Reply via email to