[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44f94eb3-4c58-a63f-c7a9-46615155d7b5@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:52:23 +0100
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pull-request: can-next 2017-02-06,pull-request: can-next
2017-02-06,Re: pull-request: can-next 2017-02-06,pull-request: can-next
2017-02-06
On 02/06/2017 05:59 PM, David Miller wrote:
> Sure but what about these "can_rx_offload_le()" comparisons?
This is to scan the mailboxes according to priority. On some CAN IP
cores the mailboxes decrease in priority (0=high, 63=low) some increase
(63=high, 0=low). The can_rx_offload_le() (le means less or equal) and
can_rx_offload_inc() functions are used to abstract the order. We always
only scan from highest to lower prio (offload->mb_first ...
offload->mb_last):
> for (i = offload->mb_first;
> can_rx_offload_le(offload, i, offload->mb_last);
> can_rx_offload_inc(offload, &i)) {
So we never wrap around.
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists