From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kurt Van Dijck Subject: Re: can: c_can: TX delivery Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:49:25 +0100 Message-ID: <20110323154925.GF346@e-circ.dyndns.org> References: <16a340801622a96218c76dbbabc7a23f.squirrel@www.linutronix.de> <20110323085340.GC346@e-circ.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: bhupesh.sharma@st.com, wg@grandegger.com, b.spranger@linutronix.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Altenberg Return-path: Received: from gate.eia.be ([194.78.71.18]:24243 "EHLO mail.eia.be" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753184Ab1CWPta (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:49:30 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:32:31PM +0100, Jan Altenberg wrote: > Hi, > > > I split your 2 questions in 2 replies. > > Thanks :) > > > not sure if I made my point. Note that this will eliminate the need > > for explicit wrap-around. It's done implicitely. > > Hmmm, I double-checked the datasheet, which gives the following statement: > "The receive/transmit priority for the Message Objects is attached to > the message number. Message Object 1 has the highest priority, while > Message Object 32 has the lowest priority. If more than one > transmission request is pending, they are serviced due to the priority > of the corresponding Message Object." With its predecessor (I used it as IP inside infineon CPU's), this was also true. But I _think_ that object 17 could send before object 16 if its identifier is lower. So, me too wait for Bhupesh ... > I'm quite new to Bosch's c_can, so maybe Bhupesh can give some feedback > (or beat me for causing some confusion ;-)). > > Sorry for the confusion! > Jan > >