Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> Hi Wolfgang, >>>> >>>> something is inconsistent about CAN_RAW in RT-Socket-CAN compared to >>>> plain Socket-CAN. Also, the latter doesn't know any CAN_PROTO_xxx unless >>>> I oversee something. Please have a look. >>> There is CAN_PROTO_RAW defined and I have added some time ago CAN_RAW to >>> rtcan.h to be compatible with Socket-CAN: >>> >>> /** Particular CAN protocols >>> * >>> * Currently only the RAW protocol is supported. >>> */ >>> #define CAN_RAW 0 >> Yes, I know. But the question remains which way to go for rtcan: >> Socket-CAN doesn't know CAN_PROTO_*, RT-Socket-CAN comes with CAN_RAW as >> well now, but having a different value. That should be resolved, on >> whatever side, IMHO. > > Ah, now I understand your concern. CAN_PROTO_RAW actually serves the > same purpose then CAN_RAW defining the particular CAN protocol. I'm > going to clean it up soon removing CAN_PROTO_RAW and updating the doc. > CAN_PROTO_RAW was not used by any application, IIRC.
The man page for "socket" describes the protocol argument as shown below: The protocol specifies a particular protocol to be used with the socket. Normally only a single protocol exists to support a particular socket type within a given protocol family, in which case protocol can be specified as 0. However, it is possible that many protocols may exist, in which case a particular protocol must be specified in this manner. A value of 0 is valid for RT-Socket-CAN but not for Socket-CAN. Therefore we need to define CAN_RAW=1 for compatibility reasons. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core