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: <201511041633.33504.marex@denx.de>
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:33:33 +0100
From:	Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
To:	Aleksander Morgado <aleksander@...ksander.es>
Cc:	Vostrikov Andrey <andrey.vostrikov@...entembedded.com>,
	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
	"Marc Kleine-Budde" <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
	"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 Wednesday, November 04, 2015 at 04:19:45 PM, Aleksander Morgado wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Vostrikov Andrey
> 
> <andrey.vostrikov@...entembedded.com> wrote:
> >>> > About the parity -- can we add some flag into the datagram to
> >>> > indicate we want hardware to calculate the parity for that
> >>> > particular datagram for us? And we'd also need to indicate what type
> >>> > of parity. I dunno if this is worth the hassle.
> >>> 
> >>> This  is HW configuration property, it does not belong to  datagram.
> >>> Also for TX channels,  parity could  be  two  kinds:  odd and even,
> >>> for RX it is only on/off.
> >> 
> >> There are datagrams which do contain parity and ones which do not
> >> contain it, correct ? Thus, it's a property of that particular
> >> datagram.
> 
> All ARINC words have bit #31 as parity bit; whether it's used or not
> depends on the setup as Andrey says below.

Can bit 31 be ever used for DATA instead of parity ? Or is this just me
not understanding the parlance of the specification, where "DATA" actually
means "DATA with parity" ?

Best regards,
Marek Vasut
--
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