On 06/17/2010 06:48 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> On 06/14/2010 01:33 PM, [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. >>> >>> 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? >> >> Yes, this is the current (known) behavior and it has been discussed >> before. We only report "increasing" state changes >> active->warning->passive->bus-off. I think it's not what we really want. >> It should be fixed. > > what about that "CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE" then?
I have not realized that #define yet. What is it good for. What we need is to implement support for state changes bus-off->active, passive->warning and warning->active as well (== support for any state change). That's what the hardware usually already does. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users
