[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:17:27 +0100
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
CC: Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>,
Masayuki Ohtake <masa-korg@....okisemi.com>,
Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya-linux@....okisemi.com>,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pch_can: fix error passive level test
On 12/12/2011 09:05 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 08:16 AM, Xi Wang wrote:
>> The test (((errc & PCH_REC) >> 8) > 127) would always be false because
>> the receive error counter ((errc & PCH_REC) >> 8) is at most 127, where
>> PCH_REC is defined as 0x7f00. To test whether the receive error counter
>> has reached the error passive level, the RP bit (15) should be used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
>
> Acked-by: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
Is this patch a candidate for stable?
> The C_CAN driver, which supports the same CAN controller, does handle
> the error passive state correctly. This reminds me to get rid of pch_can
> in favor of C_CAN sooner than later.
+1
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (263 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists