2011/11/15 Heinz-Jürgen Oertel <[email protected]> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:socketcan-users- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Kurt Van Dijck > > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9:22 AM > > To: Yuriy Kiselev > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Socketcan-users] sja1000 BasicCAN mode > > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 09:08:29PM +0400, Yuriy Kiselev wrote: > > > Hello! > > > Implementation of BasicCAN mode for SJA1000 is in attachment. > > > Now SJA1000_PELICAN_MODE macros in sja1000.h is used for definition > > PeliCAN > > > or BasicCAN mode. It would be nice to create some menuconfig-wrapper, I > > > think. > > > I use this code for a few weeks and it looks stable. > > I see no reason to use BasicCAN mode instead of PeliCAN mode. > > Instead, I do see reasons to use PeliCAN mode: > > > > * no problems when 29bit frames appear on the bus > > * rx queue of 64 byte. > > > > What is your motivation not to use PeliCAN mode? > > > > Kurt > > Kurt is correct. For my understanding, the so-called basic CAN mode of the > SJA1000 is a compatibility mode for the 82c200. It makes no sense to > support it any more with SJA1000 devices. > > Heinz >
Yes, BasicCAN mode is for specific designed devices. My device has only 5-bits address bus and I can't use PeliCAN mode.
_______________________________________________ Socketcan-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users
