[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <61D8D34BB13CFE408D154529C120E07903232025@eseldmw101.eemea.ericsson.se>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:56:25 +0100
From: Sjur Brændeland <sjur.brandeland@...ricsson.com>
To: "Marcel Holtmann" <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<stefano.babic@...ic.homelinux.org>, <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next-2.6 02/13] net-caif: add CAIF header files
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>> ...
>> CAIFSO_CHANNEL is used for specifying the physical interface to use
>> for the CAIF Channel. You can select the type of interface to use by
>> setting link_selector: CAIF_PHYPREF_LOW_LAT will typically be used
>> for AT (or other control traffic), and CAIF_PHYPREF_HIGH_BW for IP
>> traffic.
>> When the CAIF interfaces registers itself it will inform about their
>> type, (low-latency or high-bandwidth). This approach assumes that you
>> have only one modem, but multiple links to it (e.g. USB and UART).
>>
>> But you can also specify interface by name using link_name. In this
>> case you specify the name of the interface to use. I think this would
>> support your use case with multiple modems attached.
>
> sounds good, but why using a socket option and not allowing to just
> use bind(). Maybe it is just my personal preference, because I am
> used to do it like this for TCP and Bluetooth.
We actually considered this when designing the interface,
but I don't feel bind() fits in this case. bind() would normally bind
an address to the client socket. An interface did not seem
like a client socket address to us, so we decided to use sockopt instead.
Conceptually I don't think CAIF has a client address at all, it only
connects to a server side address.
BR/Sjur
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists