From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Stein Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] can: flexcan: Re-write receive path to use MB queue instead of FIFO Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 10:29:41 +0200 Message-ID: <4712537.n1vM034J9B@ws-stein> References: <1411995175-13540-1-git-send-email-david@protonic.nl> <1952804.jDdF5Ah5L9@ws-stein> <542BAA22.7010508@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from webbox1416.server-home.net ([77.236.96.61]:58838 "EHLO webbox1416.server-home.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751053AbaJAI2z (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2014 04:28:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <542BAA22.7010508@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Marc Kleine-Budde Cc: David Jander , Wolfgang Grandegger , linux-can@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 01 October 2014 09:15:46, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 10/01/2014 09:11 AM, Alexander Stein wrote: > > BTW: You posted a patch for at91_can in June (Din't get opportunity > > to try it yet), where you use a kfifo to accomplish the same, why not > > here? > > The cyclic buffer approach is okay, from my point of view. I'M just wondering why 2 different approaches have been chosen. Regards, Alexander -- Dipl.-Inf. Alexander Stein SYS TEC electronic GmbH Am Windrad 2 08468 Heinsdorfergrund Tel.: 03765 38600-1156 Fax: 03765 38600-4100 Email: alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com Website: www.systec-electronic.com Managing Director: Dipl.-Phys. Siegmar Schmidt Commercial registry: Amtsgericht Chemnitz, HRB 28082