On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:51:20AM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > I think we (the socketcan people) originally thought it's a better > solution to loop the CAN frames back in hardware (if available), as it > represents what's happening on the wire far better than software > loopback. But it turns out that many people need the receive own > messages feature (for whatever reason).
IMO, the reason is that most 'chips' provide a TX complete interrupt. SocketCAN is an extension of the bus, but a socket lacks (currently, I wrote a patch yesterday ...) a 'tx complete interrupt' equivalent. The msg path in the kernel shouldn't necessarily be the same for RX & TX msgs? Kurt _______________________________________________ Socketcan-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-users
