Berruer Sébastien wrote: > I'm on the first step of the project and I have to choose a complete > system for my customer. I looking at the constraints both for hardware > and software and the possibly dependency between them.
OK. >> I'm asking for the current state of the CAN implementation. Is it a >> partial or a >> complete implementation of the CAN standard? What are the guarantee >> about real >> time latency? > > What exactly do you mean with CAN standard? RT-Socket-CAN allows > low-level access the CAN controller to send and receive messages, handle > errors and set the bit-timing. Standard, extended and RTR frames are > supported. > > Sorry, I've made a misunderstood about the CAN organization. In fact, > the RT-Socket-CAN is a kind of user API for ease the use of CAN bus, > isn't it? It seems that, generally, the handling of protocol, like the > access to media or arbitration, is done in the chip. Yep. >> I've read in "RTDM and applications" that there would be an effort for >> implementing a CANOpen profile. But, the implementation of CANOpen >> protocol is >> let to users? I can't find any newer reference for that in sources or > in the >> documentation of Xenomai. What is the state of this project? > > If you are looking for a free CANopen implementation, CANfestival might > be an option, which also supports RT-Socket-CAN, IIRC. Check > http://canfestival.org/ for further information. > > My client asks for a complete implementation of the CANOpen protocol. I > will take all a look at this site and if it's clear for that use. Usually, only a sub-set of the CANopen protocol is implemented. Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Xenomai-help mailing list Xenomai-help@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
