[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/4] can: fixed-transceiver: Add documentation for CAN fixed transceiver bindings
On 07/26/2017 08:29 PM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:

> I'm fine with switching to using bitrate instead of speed. Kurk was
> originally the one that suggested to use the term arbitration and data
> since thats how the spec refers to it. Which I do agree with. But your
> right that in the drivers (struct can_priv) we just use bittiming and
> data_bittiming (CAN-FD timings). I don't think adding "fd" into the
> property name makes sense unless we are calling it something like
> "max-canfd-bitrate" which I would agree is the easiest to understand.
> So what is the preference if we end up sticking with two properties?
> Option 1 or 2?
> 1)
> max-bitrate
> max-data-bitrate
> 2)
> max-bitrate
> max-canfd-bitrate


>> A CAN transceiver is limited in bandwidth. But you only have one RX and
>> one TX line between the CAN controller and the CAN transceiver. The
>> transceiver does not know about CAN FD - it has just a physical(!) layer
>> with a limited bandwidth. This is ONE limitation.
>> So I tend to specify only ONE 'max-bitrate' property for the
>> fixed-transceiver binding.
>> The fact whether the CAN controller is CAN FD capable or not is provided
>> by the netlink configuration interface for CAN controllers.
> Part of the reasoning to have two properties is to indicate that you
> don't support CAN FD while limiting the "arbitration" bit rate.


It's a physical layer device which only has a bandwidth limitation.
The transceiver does not know about CAN FD.

> With one
> property you can not determine this and end up having to make some
> assumptions that can quickly end up biting people.

Despite the fact that the transceiver does not know anything about ISO
layer 2 (CAN/CAN FD) the properties should look like



But when the tranceiver is 'canfd-capable' agnostic, why provide a
property for it?

Maybe I'm wrong but I still can't follow your argumentation ideas.


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-27 20:49    [W:0.042 / U:8.996 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site