netdev - Re: 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20170629223551.GA6568@airbook.vandijck-laurijssen.be>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2017 00:36:32 +0200
From:   Kurt Van Dijck <dev.kurt@...dijck-laurijssen.be>
To:     Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@...com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, wg@...ndegger.com, mkl@...gutronix.de,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CAN-FD Transceiver Limitations

> >>
> >> mcan@0 {
> >> 	...
> >> 	fixed-transceiver {
> >> 	      max-canfd-speed = <2000>
> >> 	};
> >> 	...
> >> };

Since when would a transceiver support different speeds for CAN & CANFD?
No transceivers were available, but they are now.
I see no datalink problem applying 2MBit for regular CAN with apropriate
physical layer, and CAN does not predefine the physical layer
(advise != define).

IMHO,
	fixed-transceiver {
		max-arbitration-speed = <2000000>
		max-data-speed = <4000000>
	};
is way better to describe the hardware.
Regular CAN chips would not consider max-data-speed...

Kind regards,
Kurt