On 10/19/2017 08:35 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 10/19/2017 01:26 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>> On 10/19/2017 01:14 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>>>>>> Since we have a netlink socket interface to configure sample
>>>>>>> point, I
>>>>>>> wonder if that should be extended to configure SSP too (or at
>>>>>>> least the
>>>>>>> offset part of SSP)?
>>>
>>> +1 too
>>
>> The struct can_bittiming in defined in uapi, so we have to keep ABI
>> compatibility in mind.
>>
>
> Oh, this is fortunately NO problem ;-)
>
> struct can_bittiming {
>         __u32 bitrate;          /* Bit-rate in bits/second */
>         __u32 sample_point;     /* Sample point in one-tenth of a
> percent */
>         __u32 tq;               /* Time quanta (TQ) in nanoseconds */
>         __u32 prop_seg;         /* Propagation segment in TQs */
>         __u32 phase_seg1;       /* Phase buffer segment 1 in TQs */
>         __u32 phase_seg2;       /* Phase buffer segment 2 in TQs */
>         __u32 sjw;              /* Synchronisation jump width in TQs */
>         __u32 brp;              /* Bit-rate prescaler */
> };
>
> So we have two of these: One for the arbitration bitrate and one
> sample_point for the data bitrate -> the 'secondary' SP -> SSP
>
> :-)
>
> We already have this 'dsample-point' implemented in the ip tool:
>
> $ ip link set vcan0 type can help
> Usage: ip link set DEVICE type can
>     [ bitrate BITRATE [ sample-point SAMPLE-POINT] ] |
>     [ tq TQ prop-seg PROP_SEG phase-seg1 PHASE-SEG1
>        phase-seg2 PHASE-SEG2 [ sjw SJW ] ]
>
>     [ dbitrate BITRATE [ dsample-point SAMPLE-POINT] ] |  <<-- here!
>     [ dtq TQ dprop-seg PROP_SEG dphase-seg1 PHASE-SEG1
>        dphase-seg2 PHASE-SEG2 [ dsjw SJW ] ]
>
> But AFAIK m_can is not using that value in m_can_set_bittiming().
>
Actually I need some clarification. The sample point of the can core is
between the two time segments.
I always thought that the "sample point" options of the ip tool are used
in the internal
calculation of the two timing segments and is therefore no individual value.

>>>> If good default values are transceiver and board specific, they can go
>>>> into the DT. We need a generic (this means driver agnostic) binding
>>>> for
>>>> this. If this table needs to be tweaked for special purpose, then
>>>> we can
>>>> add a netlink interface for this as well. >
>>>> Comments?
>>>
>>> By now we calculate reasonable default values (e.g. for SP and SJW),
>>> you
>>> can override by setting alternative values via netlink configuration.
>>>
>>> I would tend to stay on this approach and not hide these things in
>>> DTs -
>>> just because of someone wants to initialize his specific interface
>>> 'easier'.
>>
>> If the values are not board specific, then it makes no sense to put them
>> into the DT.
>
> When they are NOT(?) board specific?
>
> Thinking about non-SoC CAN adapters with PCI and USB pushing the SSP
> to the DT looks wrong to me.
>
> Best,
> Oliver