On 2011-09-27 17:10, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 02:20:43PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-09-27 14:01, Richard Cochran wrote:
>>> Again, every MAC driver needs to be tastefully and wisely adapted. I
>>> don't necessarily need to avoid coalescing. The goal (for me) is *not*
>>> to provide deterministic Ethernet performance. Instead the RT packets
>>> should just be delivered ASAP.
>> This is obviously the point I completely missed. And it makes the whole
>> thing fairly uninteresting IMHO. If you want to do Ethercat, PowerLink
>> or Profinet (RT), you do need a certain level of determinism along the
>> *whole* packet path. And for the latter two, you definitely need RT IRQ
>> support, Ethercat can be OK to poll in fast setups.
>> From that POV, your approach is likely OK. But I doubt its of generic
>> use, specifically for industrial RT Ethernet.
> So, how does rtnet support EtherCAT?
There was once the EtherCAT Master Library. IIRC, it was discontinued
and removed from the web for non-technical reasons.
> Does it support PowerLink and Profinet?
Not that I know, but that's not the point. You said your approach could
provide the technical foundation for such a class of use cases while I
doubt it would work as is.
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
Xenomai-core mailing list