From: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com>
To: David Jander <david@protonic.nl>
Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>,
linux-can@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] can: flexcan: Re-write receive path to use MB queue instead of FIFO
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 11:19:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5856354.jaFqUxgnZF@ws-stein> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141001110741.0e8e5ffb@archvile>
Hello David,
On Wednesday 01 October 2014 11:07:41, David Jander wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 10:29:41 +0200
> Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Good question.... I did the at91_can modification a long time ago, and the
> initial approach was more or less guided by the current architecture of the
> at91_can driver. I also probably got better ideas when doing something very
> similar for the second time (flexcan).
> Also, I can imagine that there are more CAN drivers that have similar
> problems, and maybe we should think about a solution in the SocketCAN
> framework itself instead.
Sounds reasonable too. If someone ever wants to support flexcan on coldfire (m68k) there is only a single message box (+ a shift register), there you will need this feature for sure :)
But I'm still curious which approach is better: Implement an own cyclic buffer or use kfifo (which might be a cyclic buffer itself, dunno)?
> Talking about at91_can... I have posted that patch twice already and had
> no reaction so far. Unfortunately now I don't have the hardware anymore, so I
> doubt I can pick this up again, let alone re-write that patch, unless someone
> is willing to help with testing...
It is on my TODO, but did not get chance to test it yet. There is the statement that a proprietary driver here is better that it doesn't drop any frames under heavy load while socketcan one does. So it might actually improve the situation.
Best 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-01 9:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-29 12:52 [PATCH v5] can: flexcan: Re-write receive path to use MB queue instead of FIFO David Jander
2014-09-29 13:29 ` Alexander Stein
2014-09-29 14:39 ` David Jander
2014-09-29 15:02 ` Alexander Stein
2014-09-30 7:13 ` David Jander
2014-09-30 7:43 ` Alexander Stein
2014-10-01 6:29 ` David Jander
2014-10-01 7:11 ` Alexander Stein
2014-10-01 7:15 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2014-10-01 8:29 ` Alexander Stein
2014-10-01 9:07 ` David Jander
2014-10-01 9:19 ` Alexander Stein [this message]
2014-10-01 9:34 ` David Jander
2014-10-01 9:58 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2014-10-06 7:28 ` David Jander
2014-10-06 10:00 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2014-10-06 11:17 ` David Jander
2014-10-07 9:30 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] can: rx-fifo: Increase MB size limit from 32 to 64 David Jander
2014-10-07 9:30 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] can: rx-fifo: Add support for IRQ readout and NAPI poll David Jander
2014-10-07 13:17 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] can: rx-fifo: Increase MB size limit from 32 to 64 Marc Kleine-Budde
2014-10-07 13:27 ` David Jander
2014-10-07 14:18 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2014-10-08 9:08 ` [PATCH v5] can: flexcan: Re-write receive path to use MB queue instead of FIFO David Jander
2014-10-08 9:56 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2014-10-08 10:36 ` Alexander Stein
2014-10-08 10:43 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2014-10-08 14:01 ` David Jander
2014-10-09 10:37 ` David Jander
2014-10-01 9:19 ` David Jander
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5856354.jaFqUxgnZF@ws-stein \
--to=alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com \
--cc=david@protonic.nl \
--cc=linux-can@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mkl@pengutronix.de \
--cc=wg@grandegger.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).