From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: Re: slcanpty Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:32:45 +0200 Message-ID: <51B7896D.7080608@hartkopp.net> References: <2DAB3DC2841347E7AF7833620339B427@laptop2> <51AF950D.1050004@hartkopp.net> <8BA0AB4D19CC422597E52513948E2EF0@laptop2> <51B0D58F.2010401@hartkopp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de ([81.169.146.162]:15439 "EHLO mo-p00-ob.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756342Ab3FKUcq (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:32:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: janusz.uzycki@elproma.com.pl Cc: linux-can@vger.kernel.org, Krzysztof Borgulski On 11.06.2013 18:29, janusz.uzycki@elproma.com.pl wrote: > Hi Oliver. > >> The SLCAN protocol is a nice and simple ASCII protocol that fits for many >> purposes. But it also has some disadvantages e.g. when you want timestamps and >> additional error signaling you can usually get from a CAN controller. >> >>> (https://github.com/dschanoeh/socketcand/blob/master/doc/protocol.md) some > > I noticed that both slcanpty and socketcand don't implement bitrate settings yet. > iproute2 includes libnetlink but the library avoids CAN support. > libsocketcan seems to be the best choice but libnl also good. > > What do you prefer for CAN interface control? I'm personally using the standard ip tool from iproute together with this script: https://gitorious.org/linux-can/can-misc/blobs/master/etc/can_if BR, Oliver