On 02/14/2011 02:15 PM, Subhasish Ghosh wrote: > Hello, > > The problem with the "all" implementation is that it hogs the ARM/DSP > heavily and that's the reason why we specifically avoided this in our > firmware design. > Hence, implementing this condition spoils the whole purpose of the PRU!!
Well, I doubt that a CAN controller just supporting 8 CAN identifiers will make many CAN users happy. Anyway, the CAN identifiers could/should be configured via SysFS files (as Marc suggested). Wolfgang. > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Marc Kleine-Budde" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 3:05 PM > To: "Subhasish Ghosh" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Wolfgang Grandegger" <[email protected]>; "Kurt Van Dijck" > <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "open list:CAN NETWORK > DRIVERS" <[email protected]>; "open list:CAN NETWORK > DRIVERS" <[email protected]>; "open list" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/13] can: pruss CAN driver. > > Hello, > > On 02/14/2011 09:45 AM, Subhasish Ghosh wrote: >> That is correct, we receive only pre-programmed CAN ids and "all" or >> "range" implementation is not there in the PRU firmware. > > I'd really like to see that you add a "all" implementation to the > firmware. Or even better use the standard id/mask approach. > > cheers, Marc > _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
