netdev - Re: [RFC][PATCH] net: arinc429: Add ARINC-429 stack

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]

Message-ID: <CAAP7uc+73KiMFLrZbMM=1yAZZkn-NcVULm0YJd0UJNGBAiq3yw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:31:59 +0100
From:	Aleksander Morgado <aleksander@...ksander.es>
To:	Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
Cc:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
	Vostrikov Andrey <andrey.vostrikov@...entembedded.com>,
	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <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

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 03, 2015 at 05:56:53 PM, Aleksander Morgado wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Aleksander Morgado
>>
>> <aleksander@...ksander.es> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de> wrote:
>> >>> , or the duplex TX/RX setup for channels
>> >>> (channels are either RX or TX, not both), or the local
>> >>> echoing/loopback (which wouldn't make much sense for TX-only
>> >>> channels).
>> >>
>> >> Aren't the RX-only/TX-only channels rather a special case ?
>> >
>> > They're actually the only case AFAIK. You've got systems generating
>> > streams of ARINC429 words (e.g. the IRS, the FMC...) and systems that
>> > may consume the streams from multiple independent channels (e.g. the
>> > IFE). I try to think of each logical bus as a single transmitter
>> > broadcasting to multiple receivers.
>>
>> I've re-checked the spec and it does say that there may be systems
>> that act as source (TX) and sink (RX), e.g. DME, VOR or ILS. But in
>> those cases, they will actually have separate TX and RX physical
>> ports.
>
> So, considering that hi3593 which as 2x RX and 1x TX port, what about
> registering one device per port and be done with it ?

Yes, as long as the RX device doesn't accept writing, and the TX
device doesn't accept reading (except for echo I guess, if that ends
up getting included), that would make sense. The kernel will need to
specify somehow the port type clearly.

-- 
Aleksander
https://aleksander.es
--
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