Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] can: flexcan: change RX-FIFO feature at runtime

[Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1458 bytes --]

On 05.01.2022 09:25:35, Dario Binacchi wrote:
> > Is the name "rx-fifo" acceptable? Can you think of a better name?
> 
> If I am not mistaken this series arises from the need to deactivate
> the RxFIFO only if it is acceptable not to receive the notification of
> RTR messages.

ACK

> I wonder if this can be made explicit to the user.

I was hoping that we can find a better string that better represents
what this option does.

> Do you think it makes sense to explicitly RTR ("rtr-notify") instead
> of RxFIFO (rx-fifo)? And if it makes sense to make it clear that it
> occurs at the expense of a smaller number of messages allocated for
> reception?

I see it the other way round, probably biased by the existing driver :)
The user wants to use more buffers at the expense of loosing the ability
to receive RTR messages.

I've talked to one of my colleges and we came to the conclusion that the
driver should present the user the option to opt out from RTR reception.

If the user has opted out from RTR reception the driver can do internal
optimization, such as switching from FIFO to mailbox mode.

What about "rtr-rx" or "rx-rtr"?

regards,
Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Embedded Linux                   | https://www.pengutronix.de  |
Vertretung West/Dortmund         | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]