From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yegor Yefremov Subject: Re: [PATCH] slcan2d: add new slcan daemon Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:12:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1373536496-17141-1-git-send-email-yegorslists@googlemail.com> <5214FCFC.3070404@hartkopp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f50.google.com ([209.85.214.50]:58280 "EHLO mail-bk0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753402Ab3HVHMW (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:12:22 -0400 Received: by mail-bk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id mz11so521653bkb.23 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:12:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5214FCFC.3070404@hartkopp.net> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Oliver Hartkopp Cc: "linux-can@vger.kernel.org" , Marc Kleine-Budde On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > 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? Yes. slcan_attach.c is almost obsolete now. > 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? You're right. I've reposted the patch as slcand with detailed description, of what has really changed. > 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 ?? ACK. Yegor