Hi Wolfgang,

Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> On 05/18/2010 01:42 PM, Sebastian Smolorz wrote:
> > Pavel Cheblakov wrote:
> >> This is a general driver for cards based on PLX90xx PCI-bridges.
> >> It supports following cards:
> >>  - Adlink PCI-7841/cPCI-7841 card (http://www.adlinktech.com/)
> >>  - Adlink PCI-7841/cPCI-7841 SE card
> >>  - esd CAN-PCI/CPCI/PCI104/200 (http://www.esd.eu/)
> >>  - esd CAN-PCI/PMC/266
> >>  - esd CAN-PCIe/2000
> >>  - Marathon CAN-bus-PCI card (http://www.marathon.ru/)
> >>  - TEWS TECHNOLOGIES TPMC810 card (http://www.tews.com/)
> >
> > The esd cards mentioned above are supported by the RTCAN driver
> > xeno_can_esd_pci. Why do you propose a new driver instead of extending
> > the existing one?
> For Socket-CAN, this driver is supposed to support all PLX PCI based
> boards including the esd CAN PCI cards and also the IXXAT PCI board (not
> yet done, though). The RTCAN driver xeno_can_esd_pci is a *dedicated*
> driver for that card without generic support for the PLX PCI chips.
> Extending it makes little sense. The question is if we want to drop
> xeno_can_esd_pci and xeno_can_ixxat_pci.

With extending the esd_pci driver I meant to take this driver as a basis to 
add support for more cards. Of course this would mean to rename the driver 
in order to reflect that. I'm not against a unification of esd_pci and 
ixxat_pci but it's unneccessary work to write a new RTCAN driver if there 
exists another one which is tried and tested in the field. So my question 
was why  Pavel did not take the esd_pci driver as the starting position.

So talking about potential issues in Pavel's code (e.g. the function 
plx_pci_check_sja1000()) could be unnecessary if he derived the new driver 
from esd_pci .


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to