[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6ee18fa-a72b-9596-00d8-f6bd4a993293@hartkopp.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:41:40 +0200
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@...com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org, wg@...ndegger.com, mkl@...gutronix.de,
robh+dt@...nel.org, quentin.schulz@...e-electrons.com,
sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] can: fixed-transceiver: Add documentation for CAN
fixed transceiver bindings
On 07/28/2017 06:57 AM, Kurt Van Dijck wrote:
> So while _a_ transceiver may be spec'd to 1MBit during arbitration,
> CAN FD packets may IMHO exceed that speed during data phase.
When the bitrate is limited to 1Mbit/s you are ONLY allowed to use
1Mbit/s in the data section too (either with CAN or CAN FD).
> That was the whole point of CAN FD: exceed the limits required for
> correct arbitration on transceiver & wire.
No. CAN FD is about a different frame format with up to 64 bytes AND the
possibility to increase the bitrate in the data section of the frame.
> So I do not agree on the single bandwidth limitation.
The transceiver provides a single maximum bandwidth. It's an ISO Layer 1
device.
> The word 'max-arbitration-bitrate' makes the difference very clear.
I think you are mixing up ISO layer 1 and ISO layer 2.
Regards,
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists