Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 10:33:05AM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> Anyhow, there is no >> user of this code. Why should we add it? > > The newly introduce 'code' does not add features, nor does it add > 'functions', but it add 'flexibility'. > Since CAN is a rather raw protocol, a lot of field busses build upon it. > J1939 is just one of them. Most of them provide _some_ addressing > scheme. I'd dislike telling this would not be possible to integrate in > socketCAN kernel. > > Yes, I defend that putting all stuff in open source directly is a good > point, but it would still require me to rebuild all userspace code and > not solve my problem. > Therefore, wether or not a protocol is public available is an issue IMO. > And as such, I cannot tell from here if there are users. > I bet some users have extended sockaddr_can, and I would look at them as > 'users' of this code. Hi Kurt, if it's ok for you, i would like to move the discussion to your intended extensions ... AFAIK in J1939 you have broadcast announce messages (BAM) that send on two different CAN identifiers in one direction. This could be handled within the union. What are your proposed new structure elements for a J1939 socketcan address? Regards, Oliver _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
