From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] net: arinc429: Add ARINC-429 stack Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:33:33 +0100 Message-ID: <201511041633.33504.marex@denx.de> References: <1446419775-5215-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de> <1938246043.20151104181806@cogentembedded.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Vostrikov Andrey , Oliver Hartkopp , "Marc Kleine-Budde" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "David S. Miller" , Wolfgang Grandegger , Andrew Lunn To: Aleksander Morgado Return-path: Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]:43987 "EHLO mail-out.m-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030324AbbKDPdv (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:33:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wednesday, November 04, 2015 at 04:19:45 PM, Aleksander Morgado wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Vostrikov Andrey > > wrote: > >>> > About the parity -- can we add some flag into the datagram to > >>> > indicate we want hardware to calculate the parity for that > >>> > particular datagram for us? And we'd also need to indicate what type > >>> > of parity. I dunno if this is worth the hassle. > >>> > >>> This is HW configuration property, it does not belong to datagram. > >>> Also for TX channels, parity could be two kinds: odd and even, > >>> for RX it is only on/off. > >> > >> There are datagrams which do contain parity and ones which do not > >> contain it, correct ? Thus, it's a property of that particular > >> datagram. > > All ARINC words have bit #31 as parity bit; whether it's used or not > depends on the setup as Andrey says below. Can bit 31 be ever used for DATA instead of parity ? Or is this just me not understanding the parlance of the specification, where "DATA" actually means "DATA with parity" ? Best regards, Marek Vasut