[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e054f6d4-7ed1-98ac-8364-425f4ef0f760@hartkopp.net>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 13:51:57 +0200
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
Cc: linux-can@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Max Staudt <max@...as.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] can: skb:: move can_dropped_invalid_skb and
can_skb_headroom_valid to skb.c
On 17.05.22 12:45, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 17.05.2022 16:04:53, Vincent MAILHOL wrote:
>> So slcan, v(x)can and can-dev will select can-skb, and some of the
>> hardware drivers (still have to figure out the list) will select
>> can-rx-offload (other dependencies will stay as it is today).
>
> For rx-offload that's flexcan, ti_hecc and mcp251xfd
>
>> I think that splitting the current can-dev into can-skb + can-dev +
>> can-rx-offload is enough. Please let me know if you see a need for
>> more.
After looking through drivers/net/can/Kconfig I would probably phrase it
like this:
Select CAN devices (hw/sw) -> we compile a can_dev module. E.g. to
handle the skb stuff for vcan's.
Select hardware CAN devices -> we compile the netlink stuff into can_dev
and offer CAN_CALC_BITTIMING and CAN_LEDS to be compiled into can_dev too.
In the latter case: The selection of flexcan, ti_hecc and mcp251xfd
automatically selects CAN_RX_OFFLOAD which is then also compiled into
can_dev.
Would that fit in terms of complexity?
Best,
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists