From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Kleine-Budde Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] net: arinc429: Add ARINC-429 stack Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 16:15:00 +0100 Message-ID: <5638CF74.7030001@pengutronix.de> References: <1446419775-5215-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de> <201511021916.18117.marex@denx.de> <666821254.20151102231521@cogentembedded.com> <201511022125.47892.marex@denx.de> <56389C38.4080508@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sfsVBvwTGlfdu05iEFwsQW2QbaDrNsmtG" Cc: Marek Vasut , Vostrikov Andrey , Oliver Hartkopp , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "David S. Miller" , Wolfgang Grandegger , Andrew Lunn To: Aleksander Morgado Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.4.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:42816 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751098AbbKCPPO (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:15:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --sfsVBvwTGlfdu05iEFwsQW2QbaDrNsmtG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/03/2015 04:06 PM, Aleksander Morgado wrote: >> What about maintainability? Why take care of two almost identical >> subsystems? With making one stack "simpler" you increase, from my poin= t >> of view, the costs of maintaining even more. If you fix problems in on= e >> stack you have to adopt the other, too. >=20 > If they can share common code, that's fine, that probably can be > worked around if needed. My main issues are actually with all the > behavior that CAN supports and doesn't make much sense in ARINC, like > the complex ID filtering scheme for example (ARINC just requires 256 > bits for a minimum filter), I think it should be possible to use a simple/different filter mechanism for ARINC packages. > or the duplex TX/RX setup for channels > (channels are either RX or TX, not both), or the local > echoing/loopback (which wouldn't make much sense for TX-only > channels). Local echo/loopback comes in two flavours: - Other socket receive local generate frames, too. This is interesting if you want to merge two ARINC node on single device. - Sending socket receives send frame, too. This is useful if you need the feedback that the frame has _really_ been send, not just pushed into the networking stack. > The minimum subset of features required by an ARINC driver > is actually very small. Trying to "fit" ARINC as a subset of CAN may > actually be harder than keeping it separate maintainability wise. > Maybe the issue here is that the original patch is too CAN-like while > it shouldn't be, don't know. regards, Marc --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de | --sfsVBvwTGlfdu05iEFwsQW2QbaDrNsmtG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWOM90AAoJEP5prqPJtc/HoFMH/Rn7XEptt9T4VhWumh6FBAd5 2K3KzyCUF/O8W767gdQouWbOcHFMsAITEmCH2vidafDw4G1eDwnYb3FNP8ovrqzN XngVoA3wuwk2tAk+juFTVVekUK3Q6wB0F+uLomMfuLetDsuGDGoOXFF+a0WAEDbV MbqHeecLo//5wBYl7yHxg9flaoL7e0LgfnjzCiuFx2BtcvDvzd6WRpG34lJea+qe /bdHH9M2qLxFU23H9QjVerUYkzoKtaCWnVYPCeKj330LxgteCUMk9dJC1NyD8Eqo OgyKsSajMthTDTcxVJFi3RyNTOk6RQ4bLSbm9I4/eb1Gxm7VyUL/TrUbLmB9CSg= =jUht -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sfsVBvwTGlfdu05iEFwsQW2QbaDrNsmtG--