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 . -- Sebastian _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
