Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> On 05/18/2010 02:29 PM, Sebastian Smolorz wrote:
> > 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.
> He did *not* write a new RTCAN driver. He ported plx_pci.c from the
> mainline kernel to rtcan,
So it is a new RTCAN driver - never mind, just nitpicking. ;-)
As I said, I'm in favour of a unified driver which supports more cards than
esd_pci and ixxat_pci. The question is how we proceed best when we include
rt_sja1000_plx_pci. I suggest not to remove esd_pci immediately but rather
mark it deprecated with a reference to the new driver, e.g. in the Kconfig
help text. That way we would have a fallback driver in case of unforeseen
issues with the new driver.
> which is much less work and even less error
> > 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 .
> Does it harm? It is necessary to find out the number of channels on some
Yes, you are right.
Xenomai-core mailing list