On 06/17/2010 08:40 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> On 06/17/2010 08:19 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>>> On 06/17/2010 06:54 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >>>>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> Have a look at the statemachine in the at91_can driver[1]. I started to >>>>> make it more generic in order to be usable as a generic component. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, Marc >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.34/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c#L757 >>>> I see, we don't have a #define for state changes to error active. I tend >>>> to rename CAN_ERR_CRTL_UNSPEC to CAN_ERR_CRTL_ACTIVE. But this needs >>>> some more thoughts and discussion. "CAN_ERR_CTRL" stands for controller >>>> *problems* and that's what we have implemented. I will have a closer >>>> look tomorrow. >>> ACK, I see the need for discussion, too. However, if your time permits, >>> have a look at the above mentioned state machine. Don't look to close at >>> the individual bits that are send in the states, they can be discussed >>> seperately. >> >> The AT91 driver uses CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE to signal state changes to >> error active in a special way. I think it should be handled in a generic > > ACK, if we've defined what to signal, it's easy to implement. > >> way like any other state change, e.g. active->warning, passive->warning, >> etc. We need to fix all other drivers anyway. > > But I wass talking about the state machine in general. Does it make > sense to use it in other drivers aswell.
A similar state machine is used for other CAN controllers as well. The only difference I see is setting CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE if the error active state is entered. Have I missed something? Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users
