From: Dan Egnor <dan.egnor@gmail.com>
To: linux-can@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Querying current tx_queue usage of a SocketCAN interface
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 00:33:33 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <loom.20150402T022922-646@post.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 551C7D79.50906@optusnet.com.au
Tom Evans <tom_usenet <at> optusnet.com.au> writes:
> As the "System Designer", if your system (your car) uses SJA1000
controllers,
> or other ones, but with software that doesn't support the multiple hardware
> buffers, or has more IDs in use that the number of buffers, they you have
to
> design the *SYSTEM* so it works within those constraints.
That's all well and good, but what you're saying is that Linux SocketCAN is
incapable of supporting anything but the most absolutely basic single-mailbox
operation.
That seems surprisingly awful for something that's an established generic
interface for all CAN hardware on this operating system! No matter how many
mailboxes the controller might support, the operating system simply does not
support prioritized transmission.
This means that in our system architecture, Linux nodes must be treated as
substantially less capable than most embedded controllers. (The TI MCUs we're
using have 64 mailboxes, for example.)
This feels like a massive functional deficit that's acknowledged nowhere in
the documentation. Is this really the case??
-- egnor
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-02 0:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAE+ymru296P+LjkT7_ONVc2OGMP9mtXW46Nq5aSnm1etauj9Aw@mail.gmail.com>
2015-03-28 20:26 ` Fwd: Querying current tx_queue usage of a SocketCAN interface Paarvai Naai
2015-03-29 22:42 ` Tom Evans
2015-03-30 21:55 ` Paarvai Naai
[not found] ` <5519E5A9.7080104@optusnet.com.au>
2015-03-31 0:26 ` Paarvai Naai
2015-03-31 3:09 ` Tom Evans
2015-04-01 20:33 ` Paarvai Naai
2015-04-01 20:57 ` Dan Egnor
2015-04-02 2:20 ` Tom Evans
2015-04-02 2:33 ` Daniel Egnor
2015-04-01 23:21 ` Tom Evans
2015-04-02 0:33 ` Dan Egnor [this message]
2015-04-02 2:20 ` Tom Evans
2015-04-02 6:28 ` Flexcan (was: Re: Fwd: Querying current tx_queue usage of a SocketCAN interface) Marc Kleine-Budde
2015-04-02 11:35 ` Tom Evans
2015-04-02 12:07 ` Flexcan Marc Kleine-Budde
2015-04-04 3:32 ` Flexcan (was: Re: Fwd: Querying current tx_queue usage of a SocketCAN interface) Tom Evans
2015-04-09 8:06 ` Flexcan Tom Evans
2015-04-10 6:35 ` Flexcan (was: Re: Fwd: Querying current tx_queue usage of a SocketCAN interface) Tom Evans
2015-04-02 18:23 ` Fwd: Querying current tx_queue usage of a SocketCAN interface Paarvai Naai
2015-04-02 6:46 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2015-04-02 18:28 ` Paarvai Naai
2015-04-03 1:35 ` Tom Evans
2015-04-03 6:45 ` Paarvai Naai
2015-04-03 11:08 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2015-04-03 15:24 ` Paarvai Naai
2015-04-03 20:28 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2015-04-03 20:53 ` Paarvai Naai
2015-04-04 8:49 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2015-04-06 17:54 ` Paarvai Naai
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=loom.20150402T022922-646@post.gmane.org \
--to=dan.egnor@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-can@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.