From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4E81BF9B.1030401@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:20:43 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4E7C8EB2.1020308@domain.hid> <20110926114118.GA2213@domain.hid> <4E8188CB.4040102@domain.hid> <20110927120122.GA10155@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <20110927120122.GA10155@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC 0/1] Class driver for raw Ethernet packets List-Id: Xenomai life and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Cochran Cc: "xenomai@xenomai.org" On 2011-09-27 14:01, Richard Cochran wrote: > Again, every MAC driver needs to be tastefully and wisely adapted. I > don't necessarily need to avoid coalescing. The goal (for me) is *not* > to provide deterministic Ethernet performance. Instead the RT packets > should just be delivered ASAP. This is obviously the point I completely missed. And it makes the whole thing fairly uninteresting IMHO. If you want to do Ethercat, PowerLink or Profinet (RT), you do need a certain level of determinism along the *whole* packet path. And for the latter two, you definitely need RT IRQ support, Ethercat can be OK to poll in fast setups. >>From that POV, your approach is likely OK. But I doubt its of generic use, specifically for industrial RT Ethernet. Jan PS: You do have a stack, even if you don't like it: driver, packet layer, application. :) -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux