[email protected] wrote: > Hello, > I have got a question concerning receiving the can error control messages. > > We have used SocketCAN SW (rev 1033) with sysfs control for our CANopen SW. > Everything was working just fine. We have received CAN error control > messages (can_id CAN_ERR_CRTL with flag CAN_ERR_FLAG set) to react on the > following events: > - bus-off > - CAN Rx overrun > - error passive > - error active (recovery from errors) > > The "error active" was indicated by the error control message with the value > CAN_ERR_CRTL_UNSPEC in the databyte 1.
hmmm..."CAN_ERR_CRTL_UNSPEC" meaning "error active" looks like an implementation defined detail, bad design or even a bug (YMMV) :). Which driver are you using? > Now I try to use more current version (rev 1181) of SocketCAN, because we > need netlink CAN control API. Here I see one problem - no error active is > indicated. The CAN_ERR_CRTL_UNSPEC error control messages are missed. > I observe this problem with both sysfs and netlink variants. > Is it known and wanted behavior, to not indicate CAN_ERR_CRTL_UNSPEC any more? My at91_can driver send an explicid CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE (http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v2.6.34/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c#L833), which is (http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v2.6.34/include/linux/can/error.h#L53). There isn't any other mainline driver who uses this flag. Looks like a bug to me. cheers, Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Socketcan-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users
