Hi Oliver and Wolfgang, > From: Wolfgang Grandegger [mailto:[email protected]] > Hi Oliver, > > On 01/09/2011 12:01 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > > On 06.01.2011 21:08, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > >> Hi Marc, > >> > >> On 01/06/2011 08:44 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > > > >>> If this driver will be merged, we'll have two drivers for the same > can > >>> core in the tree. The other one is the pch_can. What do you think > should > >>> be the mid term perspective for ccan based hardware? > >> > >> Yes, I know. Unfortunately, we did realize rather late the the PCH > >> controller is a C_CAN clone and the OKI/Intel ppls did not tell us > >> either. Therefore I asked Bhupesh to provide a SJA1000-a-like > interface > >> for the C_CAN, which would allow us to provide an alternative PCI > driver > >> "pch_pci.c" for the PCH. If that driver works well on the PCH > hardware > >> as well, we should merge the best of both, if necessary, and then > >> finally remove the pch_can driver. Would that be a reasonable > proposal. > > > > At least for me this looks great. The idea to have a similar approach > as we > > successfully implemented for the sja1000 will solve future hardware > > implementations based on the ccan controller core. > > A common driver for c_can based devices will stabilize more quickly and > does also especially reduce the maintanance effort significantly. > > > BTW. for the next submission of Bhupeshs patchset, i would propose to > name the > > driver 'ccan' instead of 'c_can', so that we have a > > > > linux/drivers/net/can/ccan/... > > > > path. > > You are late ;-). Bosch named the controller *C_CAN* and therefore I > asked Bhupesh some time ago to change the file name and variable name > prefix from ccan to c_can.
Actually V1 of this patchset used the naming convention ccan. But as was rightly pointed out by Wolfgang and Mark, Bosch has officially named this core as C_CAN and the naming convention is kept as C_CAN throughout their user-manual and technical articles. IMHO, `c_can` seems to represent this Bosch core in a better way than ccan. > > Checking directory names in linux/drivers with > > > > find . -type d | grep '_' > > > > driver names with underscores are pretty unusual and mostly selected > without > > fortune: > > > > ./staging/olpc_dcon > > ./staging/wlags49_h2 > > ./staging/wlags49_h2/man > > ./staging/serqt_usb2 > > ./staging/intel_sst > > ./staging/quatech_usb2 > > ./staging/asus_oled > > ./staging/wlags49_h25 > > ./staging/ath6kl/hif/sdio/linux_sdio <- Ugh! > > ./staging/ath6kl/hif/sdio/linux_sdio/src > > ./staging/ath6kl/hif/sdio/linux_sdio/include > > ./net/pch_gbe > > ./net/fs_enet > > ./net/wireless/libertas_tf > > ./net/ibm_newemacds > > > > For that reason i would prefer 'ccan' to name this driver core. > > Well, not really a strong argument. But well, if other people do > *prefer* ccan I would not object against it. Bhupesh, what's your > opinion. I also prefer c_can :), because it makes the driver name similar to the core name. Please let me know if you agree for the same. Regards, Bhupesh _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
