On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:24:34AM +0100, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:12:12AM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > > Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 06:25:39PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > > >> christian pellegrin wrote: > > >>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> christian pellegrin wrote: > > >>>> increase). Can you confirm that? Normal state changes are interrupt > > >>>> driver. So, if the hardware does not trigger an interrupt, we have a > > >>>> problem. > > >>> On the mcp251x we get an interrupt when we get back from error-warning > > >>> to error-active but I don't know if we have to send some kind of error > > >>> frame in this case. Now nothing is sent, I was worried if this is > > >>> right. > > >> Good question. I think we should send an error message for any state > > >> change also for passive->warning->active, which we currently do not > > >> handle by software. We speak about controller *problems* and there is > > >> currently no CAN_ERR_CRTL_ACTIVE. Well, that's another weak point :-(. > > >> This needs some more thoughts/discussion. > > > We had some discussion lately, but having an interrupt (and some message > > > to userspace) seems like a non-optional requirement to me. > > > > I don't understand. What is "non-optional"? Currently we just report > > controller *problems*, meaning state changes > > active->warning->passive->bus-off. > sorry for the confusion. > I meant: having an 'bus state change' interrupt seems a requirement to > me (therefore : non-optional, but it depends on CAN chip capabilities). > This (bus-state-change interrupt) is, IMO, more important than the bus > error interrupts. > > Therefore, I think that it may not be very good not sending anything > on the 'error-warning to error-active interrupt', as was mentioned > above. > > Implementing bus-error interrupts, but poor bus state change interrupts > requires the user to enable bus-error interrupts, and tracking the bus > state itself. I do not like that (But I did no mcp251x work either). > > I think we agree, but I didn't express my opinion very clear :-)
Looking back into the header file (error.h), I realize there is no option to report all bus-state changes yet, or I'm looking wrong. > > > > > Wolfgang. > Kurt > _______________________________________________ > Socketcan-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users _______________________________________________ Socketcan-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users
