From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F3DC433E2 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:07:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 987A221481 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:07:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729336AbgIGNHh (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2020 09:07:37 -0400 Received: from mail104.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.246]:43077 "EHLO mail104.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729351AbgIGNH3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2020 09:07:29 -0400 Received: from p1.motec.com.au (n175-33-166-74.meb2.vic.optusnet.com.au [175.33.166.74]) (Authenticated sender: thomasaevans@optusnet.com.au) by mail104.syd.optusnet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3D1E6824378; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 23:07:01 +1000 (AEST) Reply-To: tom_usenet@optusnet.com.au Subject: Re: Questions about using multiple sockets To: Oliver Hartkopp , henrique ricardo figueira , linux-can@vger.kernel.org References: <20200903054724.x6giher7ldmuvbac@pengutronix.de> <1116be40-25c4-002e-8455-5d5f86ac6e03@optusnet.com.au> <20200907123356.GA15060@x1.vandijck-laurijssen.be> From: Tom Evans Message-ID: <18093198-d04c-e07e-9a92-306f9d0afbb7@optusnet.com.au> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 23:07:00 +1000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200907123356.GA15060@x1.vandijck-laurijssen.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-AU Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Optus-CM-Score: 0 X-Optus-CM-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=XJ9OtjpE c=1 sm=1 tr=0 cx=a_idp_d a=sd228vxsjXR49agASWeIzg==:117 a=sd228vxsjXR49agASWeIzg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=RSmzAf-M6YYA:10 a=Ye9q-bpsAAAA:8 a=neUsgK625uVJJ175li8A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-can@vger.kernel.org On 7/9/20 10:33 pm, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: >> >> The 'problem' seems to be already introduced by that specific ECU ;-) > > In my experience, it's hard to use 29bit CAN id's mixed with J1939. > But the 11bit CAN id range is free to use without any conflict with > j1939. > I've seen some uses of this 11bit id's. Just as long as all other devices on the bus are perfect and fully tested, and don't do what was in one of the links I sent previously: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/467932/is-it-possible-to-use-j1939-and-canopen-on-the-same-bus Certain CAN nodes don't distinguish between 11 or 29 bit internally. There are a lot of CAN devices out there that work well enough in the limited environment they've been tested in. But add anything else to the bus and change the traffic or addresses in use and you might find they can't handle that. They might be demonstrably buggy, but it will still be your fault. Especially if they throw a DTC and don't work until the vehicle gets back to the dealer to clear it. BeenThereDoneThat. Tom