Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>>> Sebastian Smolorz wrote:
>>>> Oliver Hartkopp:
>>>>> The problem is to define what a dlc > 8 provided by the CAN controller
>>>>> (which IS a BUG inside the CAN controller!) should mean to the rest of
>>>>> the data inside the registers containing the received CAN frame:
>>>>>
>>>>> - do we assume the rest to be a valid CAN frame?
>>>>> - should we drop the frame ?
>>>> The Bosch CAN specification revison 2.0 part B says that a reaction to a
>>>> DLC
>>>>> 8 is not defined but the reference CAN model defines as de-facto standard
>>>> the assumption that if DLC > 8 then DLC := 8.
>>> So we limit to 8 and do not drop the frame and just handle it like it's
>>> a totally valid frame with dlc == 8.
>> Yes.
>>
>>> The question remains, do we want to print out an error message or maybe
>>> a can error frame?
>> If it's allowed to happen (legal), we do *not* print an error message.
>> Otherwise it's just a source of trouble.
>
> okay, then the at91_can does it alright :) \o/
Congrats :-)
Indeed your
cf->can_dlc = min_t(__u8, (reg_msr >> 16) & 0xf, 8);
looks nice.
Wolfgang, should i update the drivers in the SVN and send a patch to netdev?
Regards,
Oliver
_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
