-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kurt Van Dijck wrote: >> I think a "pure" ratelimit isn't a good choice. From my point of view >> (with no CAN background) we should limit only if the errors are >> consecutive, a successfully transmitted or received CAN frame should >> reset our limiter.
> Or a bus-off indication. ACK > Resetting the rate-limit at successfull tx or rx requires disabling > _only_ the bus-error interrupt and not the TX & RX interrupt, > and is therefore chip specific? Yes, of course. We just want to limit the error interrupts but not the active/passive/warning/busoff and of course the rx/tx interrupts. On the at91_can you can individually mask the errors. IIRC the sja1000 can do likewise. Marc - -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAktqt1wACgkQjTAFq1RaXHPCkgCfTn5Qt4ZdkB4LJcq2l2PZCYfa oXcAnj3xnHcK3mrzmyoini5eo/Kiw7Mi =H0RA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Socketcan-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users
