juanba romance wrote:
> After review your current user interface i can not understand how a RF 
> cycle flows through the user application
> holding as much as possible the latency at the receiver side. Maybe it's 
> my own misunderstanding.

Your just send a "remote transmission request" message and receive the 
response as a normal message.

> The point is one node requests an information to another one issuing a 
> RF, the CAN specification says that the RF receptor will handshake the 
> cycle issuing the corresponding DF, and right here is when/where i am 
> fuzzy. We use this capability using real time as much as possible only 
> relying on the CANbus network load, i mean we perform the RF handshake 
> using the RF receptor mailbox auto-reply capability, feedbacking the 
> user software only when the DF handshake is decoded at the network, this 
> event will trigger the user actions i.e. the message data update with 
> the new local variables state. This feature is requested through  the 
> configuration stage, this kind of information is labeled as "quick.ack" 
> responses , cause are not related with software at all. The RF requester 
> has the guarantee  that the information is sampled with any jitter 
> software coupled. The typical approach found in other stacks is labelled 
> as " slow.ack", it avoids to response the RF-request up to reach any 
> software area (kernel/user spaces) that explicitly issue the data-frame 
> as usual, this is how can-festival currently works.

Can you point me to the code in CAN-Festival supporting directly that 
feature of the i82527?

RTR message handling of the i82527 is very special and I do not know any 
other (non-compatible) CAN controller doing it in a similar way. The 
feature you like so much makes it actually a nightmare to support the 
i82527 in a generic framework (like RT-Socket-CAN or Socket-CAN), 
especially receiving RTR messages by justs using send and receive. 
Anyhow, supporting the RTR auto-reply capability in (RT-)Socket-CAN is 
feasible and would be a "nice to have". It could be supported by a 
generic RTR update object. Would be nice, if you bring-up the idea on 
the Socket-CAN mailing list to share it between other CAN experts with 
the goal to define an CAN-API extension.


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to