From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH v4] can: fix handling of unmodifiable configuration options Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:25:01 +0100 Message-ID: <56F0124D.9040008@hartkopp.net> References: <1458374870-5380-1-git-send-email-socketcan@hartkopp.net> <56F00B1E.5080909@hartkopp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.220]:54450 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755999AbcCUPbX (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:31:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ramesh Shanmugasundaram , "linux-can@vger.kernel.org" On 03/21/2016 04:19 PM, Ramesh Shanmugasundaram wrote: >> The only thing I was not sure about when forcing static ctrlmodes to be >> set was the fact that you would need to set fd-non-iso for the MCAN >> controller setup - even when you only configure it for CAN2.0 traffic: >> >> ip link set can0 type can bitrate 100000 -> ok >> >> ip link set can0 type can bitrate 100000 one-shot on -> fail > > Oh! I checked for M_CAN but only the config above this. Good that you spotted. > >> >> ip link set can0 type can bitrate 100000 one-shot on fd-non-iso on -> ok >> >> To be consistent with 'static ctrlmodes have to be provided' it looks ok. >> But from a CAN2.0 perspective it looks confusing. > > Definitely. > >> >> I wonder if it makes sense to handle this *special* case not to force fd- >> non-iso when the controller won't get into FD mode. What do you think? > > Yes, I agree. Non-ISO only mode will eventually phase out and having a "special" case for this sounds logical. > Ok. I'll put this special handling into can_changelink() and will post an update (v5). Thanks, Oliver