From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <46226E16.9080004@domain.hid> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:25:26 +0200 From: Wolfgang Grandegger MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <461D65BC.2090406@domain.hid> <46220DC4.9040306@domain.hid> <46222105.90900@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <46222105.90900@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] CAN_RAW, CAN_PROTO_RAW, and Socket-CAN List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai-core Jan Kiszka wrote: > Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Hi Wolfgang, >>> >>> something is inconsistent about CAN_RAW in RT-Socket-CAN compared to >>> plain Socket-CAN. Also, the latter doesn't know any CAN_PROTO_xxx unless >>> I oversee something. Please have a look. >> There is CAN_PROTO_RAW defined and I have added some time ago CAN_RAW to >> rtcan.h to be compatible with Socket-CAN: >> >> /** Particular CAN protocols >> * >> * Currently only the RAW protocol is supported. >> */ >> #define CAN_RAW 0 > > Yes, I know. But the question remains which way to go for rtcan: > Socket-CAN doesn't know CAN_PROTO_*, RT-Socket-CAN comes with CAN_RAW as > well now, but having a different value. That should be resolved, on > whatever side, IMHO. Ah, now I understand your concern. CAN_PROTO_RAW actually serves the same purpose then CAN_RAW defining the particular CAN protocol. I'm going to clean it up soon removing CAN_PROTO_RAW and updating the doc. CAN_PROTO_RAW was not used by any application, IIRC. Wolfgang.