On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 07:58:09PM +0400, Yuriy Kiselev wrote: > 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. Still, properly attached SJA1000 is better used in PELICAN mode. I'm sure you agree.
But I see your point. Must your hardware be supported by SJA1000? Or by a completely seperate 82c200 driver? You probably can start from the SJA1000. Kurt > _______________________________________________ > Socketcan-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users _______________________________________________ Socketcan-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users
