Hi Vladislav, On 09/07/2009 10:31 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Hi, > > my interpretation of ISO 11898-1 is that it is indeed allowed > to recover from bus off to error-active after 128*11 recessive > bits AND "user request", where "user request" is SW or HW > request. > So the HW (CAN controller) is allowed to implement auto recovery > feature (may even make auto recovery to the permanent and the > only behavior). > >> From the CAN point of view the bus off is a protection mechanism, > the CAN controller goes to bus off because something is seriously > wrong with itself, wires or other nodes. So it is very often not > really good idea to make automatic recovery which is with other > words simply ignoring that serious problems (well, the reception > of 128*11 recessive bits is a good sign that the problem has gone, > but still..). The application may want the CAN controller to > signal the bus off and stay off the bus until the application > decides to recover the communication. > > So if the CAN controller only supports auto recovery and cannot > keep hands off from the bus, the option for the manual recovery > in the socket CAN driver is to reset CAN controller in the bus off > interrupt (I remember this was proposes by Sebastian, and I > agree on this).
Yes, the question is if we should support auto-recovery at all, e.g. as proposed in https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/socketcan-core/2009-September/002971.html I tend to disallow it, also to have a common behavior of auto and manual recovery. Wolfgang. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
