Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > 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?
yes similar, but does it make sense so implement a somewhat different state machine in all drivers again? 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
