netdev - Re: can: c_can: TX delivery

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:49:25 +0100
From:	Kurt Van Dijck <kurt.van.dijck@....be>
To:	Jan Altenberg <jan@...utronix.de>
Cc:	bhupesh.sharma@...com, wg@...ndegger.com, b.spranger@...utronix.de,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: can: c_can: TX delivery

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:32:31PM +0100, Jan Altenberg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > I split your 2 questions in 2 replies.
> 
> Thanks :)
> 
> > not sure if I made my point.  Note that this will eliminate the need
> > for explicit wrap-around.  It's done implicitely.
> 
> Hmmm, I double-checked the datasheet, which gives the following statement:
> "The receive/transmit priority for the Message Objects is attached to
> the message number.  Message Object 1 has the highest priority, while
> Message Object 32 has the lowest priority. If more than one
> transmission request is pending, they are serviced due to the priority
> of the corresponding Message Object."

With its predecessor (I used it as IP inside infineon CPU's), this was also
true. But I _think_ that object 17 could send before object 16 if its identifier
is lower.
So, me too wait for Bhupesh ...

> I'm quite new to Bosch's c_can, so maybe Bhupesh can give some feedback
> (or beat me for causing some confusion ;-)).
> 
> Sorry for the confusion!
>         Jan
> 
> 
--
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