Re: What are you doing if the TX buffer overflows?

[Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1471 bytes --]

On 09/18/2012 03:39 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> On 09/18/2012 03:00 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>> On 09/18/2012 02:49 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>> We have several customers who asked how to abort pending TX messages,
>>>> too. Which involves:
>>>> a) clear the TX-queue in Linux
>>>> b) clear queue in hardware
>>>> c) abort currently transmitting CAN frame
>>>>
>>>> I think c) would be a usecase of its own, too.
>>>
>>> I think you need c) for b), at least for some controllers. These
>>
>> Yes, if it's a hardware limitation so be it. But if we design an
>> interface it should support "clear everything" (a+b+c), but also just
>> only c.
> 
> Yes, that you be nice. The only portable "clear everything" (a+b+c) I
> see is "ifconfig down -> up". This also answers you other related mail.
> 
> What do people really want/need and why? This is still not clear to me.
> More input would be nice.

Heinz-Jürgen uses abort current TX Message on SJA1000, can you give us
more insight? I've talked to customers, e.g. they want to abort the
current frame if it takes "too long" to send it, because the frames CAN
id priority is too low.

Marc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 259 bytes --]