Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:24:34AM +0100, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:12:12AM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>> Kurt Van Dijck wrote: >>>> On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 06:25:39PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>>>> christian pellegrin wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> christian pellegrin wrote: >>>>>>> increase). Can you confirm that? Normal state changes are interrupt >>>>>>> driver. So, if the hardware does not trigger an interrupt, we have a >>>>>>> problem. >>>>>> On the mcp251x we get an interrupt when we get back from error-warning >>>>>> to error-active but I don't know if we have to send some kind of error >>>>>> frame in this case. Now nothing is sent, I was worried if this is >>>>>> right. >>>>> Good question. I think we should send an error message for any state >>>>> change also for passive->warning->active, which we currently do not >>>>> handle by software. We speak about controller *problems* and there is >>>>> currently no CAN_ERR_CRTL_ACTIVE. Well, that's another weak point :-(. >>>>> This needs some more thoughts/discussion. >>>> We had some discussion lately, but having an interrupt (and some message >>>> to userspace) seems like a non-optional requirement to me.
>>> I don't understand. What is "non-optional"? Currently we just report >>> controller *problems*, meaning state changes >>> active->warning->passive->bus-off. This should answer your question below. >> sorry for the confusion. >> I meant: having an 'bus state change' interrupt seems a requirement to >> me (therefore : non-optional, but it depends on CAN chip capabilities). >> This (bus-state-change interrupt) is, IMO, more important than the bus >> error interrupts. >> >> Therefore, I think that it may not be very good not sending anything >> on the 'error-warning to error-active interrupt', as was mentioned >> above. >> >> Implementing bus-error interrupts, but poor bus state change interrupts >> requires the user to enable bus-error interrupts, and tracking the bus >> state itself. I do not like that (But I did no mcp251x work either). >> >> I think we agree, but I didn't express my opinion very clear :-) > > Looking back into the header file (error.h), I realize there is no > option to report all bus-state changes yet, or I'm looking wrong. No, see above. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users
