From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: Re: [PATCH] slcan2d: add new slcan daemon Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:46:36 +0200 Message-ID: <5214FCFC.3070404@hartkopp.net> References: <1373536496-17141-1-git-send-email-yegorslists@googlemail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de ([81.169.146.160]:26712 "EHLO mo-p00-ob.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751519Ab3HURqn (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:46:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Yegor Yefremov Cc: "linux-can@vger.kernel.org" , Marc Kleine-Budde On 17.08.2013 21:01, Yegor Yefremov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Yegor Yefremov > wrote: >> Hi Marc, Oliver, >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM, wrote: >>> From: Yegor Yefremov >>> >>> Cleaned up version of Oliver Hartkopp's effort with addition of >>> UART speed configuration. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Yegor Yefremov >> >> any comments/suggestions? > > ping > Hi Yegor, sorry for my delayed response. I just got through your slcan2d by diffing it with the existing slcand. It's a cool cleanup and it adds all relevant command line options we know from slcan_attach.c & UART settings - i think that was the idea, right? As i can see there's no change of the functionality when the 'optional options' are not given on the command line. So why don't you just post a patch which makes the slcand your 'slcan2d' code? IMHO having both the slcand and the slcan2d in the same repository does not make sense if they behave identical when having the same (empty) options. Or did I miss anything that slcand behaves different to slcan2d ?? Thanks & BR, Oliver