Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> Hi Wolfgang,
>>>>
>>>> something is inconsistent about CAN_RAW in RT-Socket-CAN compared to
>>>> plain Socket-CAN. Also, the latter doesn't know any CAN_PROTO_xxx unless
>>>> I oversee something. Please have a look.
>>> There is CAN_PROTO_RAW defined and I have added some time ago CAN_RAW to
>>> rtcan.h to be compatible with Socket-CAN:
>>>
>>> /** Particular CAN protocols
>>> *
>>> * Currently only the RAW protocol is supported.
>>> */
>>> #define CAN_RAW 0
>> Yes, I know. But the question remains which way to go for rtcan:
>> Socket-CAN doesn't know CAN_PROTO_*, RT-Socket-CAN comes with CAN_RAW as
>> well now, but having a different value. That should be resolved, on
>> whatever side, IMHO.
>
> Ah, now I understand your concern. CAN_PROTO_RAW actually serves the
> same purpose then CAN_RAW defining the particular CAN protocol. I'm
> going to clean it up soon removing CAN_PROTO_RAW and updating the doc.
> CAN_PROTO_RAW was not used by any application, IIRC.
The man page for "socket" describes the protocol argument as shown below:
The protocol specifies a particular protocol to be used with the
socket. Normally only a single protocol exists to support a
particular socket type within a given protocol family, in which
case protocol can be specified as 0. However, it is possible that
many protocols may exist, in which case a particular protocol
must be specified in this manner.
A value of 0 is valid for RT-Socket-CAN but not for Socket-CAN.
Therefore we need to define CAN_RAW=1 for compatibility reasons.
Wolfgang.
_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
