Hi Kurt, On 05/04/2011 05:57 PM, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: >> >>> How hard would it be to implement that feature in Socket CAN? >> >> CAN controllers usually provide some kind of hardware CAN id filtering, >> but in a very hardware dependent way. A generic interface may be able to >> handle the PRUSS restrictions as well. CAN devices are usually >> configured through the netlink interface. e.g. >> >> $ ip link set can0 up type can bitrate 125000 >> >> and such a common interface would be netlink based as well. > ack. >> >>> Is that something that Subhasish or someone else could to as a prerequisite >>> to merging the driver? >> >> Any ideas on how to handle hardware filtering in a generic way are >> welcome. I will try to come up with a proposal sooner than later. > > When doing so, I'd vote for an unlimited(by software) list of hardware > filters (id/mask). > The hardware must abort when no more filters are available.
Sounds good and not even to complicated. For the SJA1000 we would just allow to set the global mask. > I think that when using hardware filters, knowing the actual device > with it's amount of hardware filters is the least of your problems. > Userspace applications that suddenly stop working properly due to > hw filters (i.e. some traffic not coming in anymore) will be a major > source of bugreports. Well, hardware filtering will be off by default and must explicitly be set by the user, like for the bitrate setting. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
