From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Kleine-Budde Subject: Re: adding can4linux to drivers/char Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:44:51 +0200 Message-ID: <52486713.2000209@pengutronix.de> References: <1881932.U1kQQJkqCz@heinz.site> <523DF9C1.30300@grandegger.com> <2109885.0l6dWmo4a5@heinz.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lMOhgJKmJiI0n62rQAwtGnGGVQl4fNUsC" Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:48842 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754890Ab3I2Ro6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:44:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <2109885.0l6dWmo4a5@heinz.site> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?SGVpbnotSsO8cmdlbiBPZXJ0ZWw=?= Cc: linux-can@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --lMOhgJKmJiI0n62rQAwtGnGGVQl4fNUsC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 09/29/2013 06:28 PM, Heinz-J=C3=BCrgen Oertel wrote: > Am Samstag, 21. September 2013, 21:55:45 schrieb Wolfgang Grandegger: >> I think you need *strong* arguments to get it accepted.=20 >=20 > I have some good arguments for this kind of driver > - it is much more simple in design than others, > simplicity is one of the Linux design goals What is in your opinion too complicated about linux CAN? Is it a lack of Documentation or examples? > - It has a simple user API For a simple program you need socket(), bind(), read(), write(). > - It does not need any other infrastructure than the kernel API This is another way of telling, we've reinvented the rest on our own. > - It is mature The ultimate question is: What problem does it solve? > I agree, it would be nice to share the low level CAN controller related= =20 > experiences of the developers. That is may be something we can share if= we=20 > could agree of a set of CAN controller header files with shared registe= r=20 > #defines. And a set of very basic functions like initialize and activat= e CAN,=20 > set acceptance filters, transmit and receive, read out error register o= r=20 > whatever. Like the driver and the socket infrastructure? > But to stay simple, I don't like the idea to have another additional la= yer=20 > around SocketCAN as layer below the can4linux API. Does this mean you want to duplicate the drivers? > Linux offers real diversity on the desktop, why not with drivers? Linux= also=20 > has different sound devices and architectures. Why not offering two di= fferent=20 > CAN driver concepts to the application programmer, > let she decide what to use. Sorry, but I can only NAK this idea. Marc --=20 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 | --lMOhgJKmJiI0n62rQAwtGnGGVQl4fNUsC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlJIZxcACgkQjTAFq1RaXHMZlACeOCSSwCGJiRdEsinJlAszrI6b QIwAnRdZhuuVCU935PvtyB3DeTW4sw6F =phuu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lMOhgJKmJiI0n62rQAwtGnGGVQl4fNUsC--