From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: miaofng <miaofng@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:53:53 +0800
Subject: [U-Boot] CAN console
In-Reply-To: <20091026125220.355BD28B9B@gemini.denx.de>
References: <4AE55BB2.6090608@arcor.de>
	<200910260437.32577.vapier@gentoo.org>	<4AE5834F.5040307@arcor.de>
	<200910260726.59949.vapier@gentoo.org>	<4AE593F3.3030608@arcor.de>
	<20091026125220.355BD28B9B@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <4AE5A9F1.9060002@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Is there any chance that the stuff posted by miaofng will be available
>> in u-boot-next?
>>     
>
> I'm not really sure. As Wolfgang Grandegger already commented, the
> implementation is really heavy for a mere boot loader. Sharing code
> with Linux is generally a good thing, but it has to fit, too. I'm not
> convinced it fits here. Let's see wht the now following discussion
> gives. In any case, this is too green for "next". IMHO it would even
> bee too green for "staging" if we had something like this (which we
> don't have :-)
>
>
>   
In fact it's not so heavy, it is  not socket can architecture based!!!
I copied some of linux socket can based  ->driver part<-  of codes and 
added a small wrapped layer(by myself)
only because i am too lazy to rewrite the sja1000 driver.

For blocked or unblocked access problem, it does support both.
To me, i agree mike's view if i write the sja1000 driver from scratch:)