David Jander wrote: > Hi again, > > On Wednesday 28 December 2005 11:44, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > >>AFAIK, there is no _generic_ embedded CAN driver available which even >>supports real-time extensions. > > > Yes, lincan does. Well, it supports RTlinux and OCERA's RTlinux (GPL) > modifications, which somehow reinvent ADEOS (or is it the other way around?), > but since RTlinux is an option only for i386, and anyway almost dead right > now, you could say it doesn't support real-time extensions.
Well, ADEOS uses a different method of handling interrupts and exceptions to avoid the infamous RTLinux patent. Better let's say: it doesn't support really "free" real-time extensions. > The problem of saying "Peak-CAN for SJA1000" and "OCAN for intel" is that you > can basically forget about writing portable code because they are both very > different. I agree. > Maybe you should have a look at Pavel Pisa's lincan. After trying it out you > might end up as confused as I am, because it doesn't look that bad at all, > it's almost platform independent, supports all kernels (2.2 to latest 2.6), > and supports a great amount of cards with intel and/or philips chips (yes, > both of them on one card is also an option). The driver is designed with > performance and throughput in mind, but I am not so sure about the API which > is still a little too simple (maybe that's actually good) and doesn't support > properly checking chip- or bus-status yet. Also honorable is their effort of > staying compatible with at least one other player: can4linux. In the meantime I had a closer look and it looks like the most advanced in terms of portability, indeed. My experience is, that the chip- or bus-status, apart from the bus-off state, is very hardware specific and it's difficult to provide a generic API. Still need to dig more in lincan to make a reasonable judgment, though. > Greetings, and thanks for the comments, > > Btw, how's ELDK-4 coming along? Please ask Wolfgang Denk directly. Wolfgang.
