From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <506D82E2.6080908@xenomai.org> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:36:50 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <506D7DFF.6040403@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <506D7DFF.6040403@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] Modified rtcan_virt driver List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thierry Bultel Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org On 10/04/2012 02:15 PM, Thierry Bultel wrote: > Hi, > > The existing rtcan_virt driver simulates a single CAN bus, on which are > N devices. > Sending to one dispatches the frame to all the others but the not to the > sender. > > This has several disadvantages: > > - First, to run an application that uses 2 or more physical buses, it > does not fit, because both devices would be linked together. > - Second, having N instantiated virtual devices is in some cases not > necessary, because an application can open the > same device several times, and simulate many CAN nodes, on that single > device. > > Thus I have written another rtcan_virt driver, based on the original one. > > Its behavior is as follows: > > - It instantiates N rtcan devices, that are independent (no frame from > one to another) > - Each virtual rtcan (rtcan0, rtcan1 ...) device has a matching peer > (rtcan0s, rtcan1s ...) > ('s' like 'slave' but I am opened to any other naming) another to > communicate with. > That 'slave' device isautomatically created. > I say 'slave' in quotes because the word hides the symmetrical aspect, > so it is likely unappropriate.. > > It is today fully tested, my question was if it could be of interest for > the Xenomai mainline. > If Yes: > - some questions come, to my mind the most important one is if is a new > driver, or a patch for the existing one, > to modify its behavior depending on a parameter. If it is a new one, > what would be the appropriate name ? > - I would be happy to make it as a patch (not ready for that yet, and > until the first questions are answered) > > If No, I just apologize for the noise. I think it is interesting, what about linking the odd ones to the even ones for the symetry? -- Gilles.