From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: Re: am335x: d_can: rx issue Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:22:06 +0200 Message-ID: <535FDFBE.1080007@hartkopp.net> References: <535FDD04.2050804@hartkopp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.218]:18483 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757779AbaD2RWK (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:22:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Yegor Yefremov , "linux-can@vger.kernel.org" , Marc Kleine-Budde , Alexander Stein On 29.04.2014 19:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >> Btw. I'm currently running Daves net-tree here and was forced to define >> CONFIG_CAN_C_CAN_STRICT_FRAME_ORDERING during 'make oldconfig' ... >> >> Can this Kconfig option probably be removed in the 3.15-rc phase when >> it's not really needed anymore? >> >> See: http://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=139746476821294&w=2 > > If it's not necessary for any of the C/DCAN incarnations we can > probably drop it and rip the code out. Hm. I don't know. AFAIK only Alexander and you detected and discussed the frame re-ordering issue of the C_CAN in length. I put Alexander in CC. When you both don't have any objections it's up to your opinion to remove this (hopefully) obsolete option. Best regards, Oliver