Re: [Socket-can] Re: Which CAN driver to port to for PPC

[Jan Kiszka <kiszka@rts.uni-hannover.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1336 bytes --]

Robert Schwebel wrote:
> ...
> In december, we have made a synchronisation meeting with the VW people
> who made the initial port for 2.4; they are more focussed on having
> higher level transport protocols ontop of the "raw" socket interface we
> currently use. During that process we have reviewed the user interface
> with regard to their use cases, so it will have to be changed a little
> bit before we have something which is in a state to be posted on lkml.
> 

Beyond the outstanding comparably minor API adjustments, we furthermore
discussed first ideas how to define the lowest interface, i.e. the CAN
network device layer. That should be done in a way which makes porting
CAN low-level drivers between the standard kernel and a real-time Linux
CAN stack trivial. That's a unique chance (compared to the situation of
RTnet e.g.), so we should take it.

This real-time stack is to be derived from the RT-SJA1000 driver
Wolfgang pointed at. It is already based on an abstraction layer (RTDM)
that makes it portable across many of the various RT-Linux variant. So
far this includes support for Xenomai and RTAI, RTLinux/GPL is planning
to adopt RTDM as well. This means we could end up with portable CAN
applications and drivers, RT and non-RT!

As Robert said, it "just" requires some resources for implementing
this... ;)

Jan

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]