[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <666821254.20151102231521@cogentembedded.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 23:15:21 +0300
From: Vostrikov Andrey <andrey.vostrikov@...entembedded.com>
To: Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
CC: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
"Marc Kleine-Budde" <mkl@...gutronix.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] net: arinc429: Add ARINC-429 stack
Hi,
> I was thinking about this and I mostly agree with you. Obviously, copying the
> code this way was dumb. On the other hand, ARINC and CAN are two different sort
> of busses, so I'd propose something slightly different here to avoid confusion
> and prevent the future extensions (or protocols) from adding unrelated cruft
> into the CAN stack.
Another major difference between CAN and ARINC429 is that ARINC is
simplex. It does not need loopback and echo. For example HOLT IC
chip HI-3593 has two receivers and single transmitter, which
should be instantiated as separate devices, as each channel could be
connected to different network.
It would be nice if new ARINC framework will provide means to create
RX or TX only network device and have -rx- or -tx- as part of device
name.
Label space in ARINC is much smaller than in CAN, is it really needed
to have hash and masks? May be simple bitmap for 256 bits will fit
better. At least it could be directly provided to mentioned HOLT chip
to do filtering in hardware.
--
Best regards,
Andrey
--
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