netdev - CAN-FD Transceiver Limitations

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <de1f6343-4b28-4a5f-c6df-4e54c09fcce2@ti.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:14:42 -0500
From:   Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@...com>
To:     <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <wg@...ndegger.com>, <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Subject: CAN-FD Transceiver Limitations

Hi All,

The various CAN transceivers I've seen that support CAN-FD appear to be
fairly limited in terms of their supported max speed. I've seen some
transceivers that only support upto 2 Mbps while others support up to  5
Mbps. This is a problem when the SoC's CAN IP can support even higher
values than the transceiver.

Ideally I would think the MCAN driver should at the very least know what
the maximum speed supported by the transceiver it is connected to.
Therefore, either throwing an error if a request for a speed above the
transceiver capability or lower the requested speed to what ever the
transceiver is capability of doing.

In either case I do not know if it makes sense to add a DT property
within the MCAN driver or create another subnode that contains this
information. For example I see some ethernet drivers support
"fixed-link" subnode which is trying to solve a similar issue. Should I
go with that approach? If so would it make sense to reuse fixed-link
even though majority of its properties aren't applicable? Or should I
create something similar such as fixed-can-transceiver?