Re: [RFC] K-Line protocol via SocketCAN

[Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>]

On 06/15/2016 05:42 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 06/14/2016 08:10 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>
>>>> On 06/11/2016 09:42 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>> Well, I was talking about arinc 429 .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah - I remember that discussion:
>>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/663130/
>>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/385449
>>>>
>>>> What happed to it?
>>>
>>> Priorities shifted. I still hope to return to it and get it into
>>> mainline proper. Since I did some digging in the socketcan recently,
>>> I have a better understanding of it now too. I believe the agreement
>>> there was to put it into the socketcan stack as an extension, does it
>>> still make sense ?
>>>
>>
>> There were intensive discussions about the original patchset and I think
>> the copy&paste hell from the PF_CAN won't make it.
>
> Yeah, that's pretty clear to me. But does it make sense to extend
> socketcan with that arinc429 stuff instead then ?

You might think into the direction of the SLLIN implementation:

Create a ldisc which smells like a CAN interface.
SLLIN doesn't change SocketCAN either.

Regards,
Oliver