From: Ramesh Shanmugasundaram <ramesh.shanmugasundaram@bp.renesas.com>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
"wg@grandegger.com" <wg@grandegger.com>,
"robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
"pawel.moll@arm.com" <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
"mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
"galak@codeaurora.org" <galak@codeaurora.org>,
"corbet@lwn.net" <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: "linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-can@vger.kernel.org" <linux-can@vger.kernel.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
"geert+renesas@glider.be" <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
Chris Paterson <Chris.Paterson2@renesas.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] can: rcar_canfd: Add Renesas R-Car CAN FD driver
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 08:57:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <SG2PR06MB1038B71C7921984611F72CF5C3B20@SG2PR06MB1038.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56DE8345.50901@hartkopp.net>
Hi Oliver,
Thanks for the comments.
> On 03/07/2016 09:32 AM, Ramesh Shanmugasundaram wrote:
>
> >>>>> + /* Ensure channel starts in FD mode */
> >>>>> + if (!(priv->can.ctrlmode & CAN_CTRLMODE_FD)) {
> >>>>> + netdev_err(ndev, "enable can fd mode for channel %d\n",
> ch);
> >>>>> + goto fail_mode;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> What's the reason behind this check?
> >>>>
> >>>> A CAN FD capable CAN controller can be either configured to run as
> >>>> CAN 2.0 (Classic CAN) or as CAN FD controller.
> >>>>
> >>>> So why are to throwing an error here and produce an initialization
> >>>> failure?
> >>>
> >>> When this controller is configured in FD mode and used only with CAN
> >>> 2.0 nodes, it still expects a DTSEG (data bitrate) configuration
> >>> same as NTSEG (nominal bitrate). This check, specifically in
> >>> ndo_open, ensures both are configured and will work fine with CAN
> >>> 2.0 nodes
> >>> (e.g.)
> >>>
> >>> "ip link set can0 up type can bitrate 1000000 dbitrate 1000000 fd on"
> >>>
> >>> If I don't have this check, a configuration like this
> >>>
> >>> "ip link set can0 up type can bitrate 1000000"
> >>>
> >>> will bring up the controller without DTSEG configured.
>
> What about spending some status flag or setting the data bitrate equal to
> the nominal bitrate unless a data bitrate is provided?
As you mentioned further down, when a user does this
"ip link set can0 up type can bitrate 1000000"
the intention is to put the controller in CAN 2.0 mode. Even if we use a status flag or copy the data bitrate equal to the nominal bitrate, what would it achieve? It still cannot be a CAN 2.0 node - it is a CAN FD node configured with same nominal & data bitrate.
This is why I have this check in ndo_open, so that the user is aware it is a CAN FD node always and avoid misconfiguration like above with EOPNOTSUPP.
>
> >>
> >> That should bring up the controller in CAN 2.0 mode.
> >
> > Yes, that's the user's intention but the manual states DTSEG still need
> to be configured. In the above configuration, it will not be.
> > Besides, this will not be a "pure" CAN 2.0 node (i.e.) if a frame with
> length > 8 bytes is received the controller will "ACK" because in FD mode
> it can receive up to 64 bytes frame.
>
> Oh. We probably mix something up here (CAN frame formats & bitrates).
>
> A CAN2.0 frame and a CAN FD frame have very different representations on
> the wire! So if you see a FDF (former EDL) bit this is a CAN FD frame,
> which requires two bitrates (nominal/data bitrate) where the data bitrate
> has to be greater or equal the nominal bitrate.
>
> The fact that the data bitrate is equal the nominal/arbitration bitrate
> has nothing to do with CAN2.0 then. Regarding your answer this is not even
> "a pure CAN2.0" node - it still looks like a CAN FD node with equal
> data/nominal bitrates.
I agree. May be I mixed up my wordings but my intention is same - the controller is still an FD node & not pure CAN 2.0 node. This is why I have the check.
>
> The fact that a CAN FD frame has a size of 8 bytes doesn't make it a
> CAN2.0 frame :-)
>
> >
> > The controller does support a "pure" classical CAN mode with a different
> set of register map itself.
>
> Is this a can_rcar controller register mapping then?
Nope. This is a different IP compared to can_rcar. It has a different set of register map within the IP to act as a pure classical CAN 2.0 node. When I say "pure", it will pass CAN 2.0 conformance tests :-). It is worth adding this support? Do you think of a strong use case?
>
> > Do you think a pure CAN 2.0 mode support would be beneficial? I can
> submit this in coming days on top of current submission.
> >
> > The current submission status is:
> > - Controller operates in CAN FD mode only.
> > - If needed to interoperate with CAN 2.0 nodes, data bitrate still need
> to be configured and it will work perfectly. However, it is not a "pure"
> CAN 2.0 node as mentioned above.
>
> When you have a CAN FD /capable/ controller the idea is:
>
> "ip link set can0 up type can bitrate 1000000"
>
> The controller is in CAN2.0 mode:
>
> 1. It can send and receive CAN2.0 frames @1MBit/s.
> 2. The MTU is set to 16 (sizeof(struct can_frame)) ; CAN_CTRLMODE_FD is
> unset.
> 3. The CAN controller is not CAN FD tolerant (will produce error frames)
>
> "ip link set can0 up type can bitrate 1000000 dbitrate 1000000 fd on"
>
> 1. It can send and receive CAN2.0 frames @1MBit/s.
> 2. It can send and receive CAN FD frames @1MBit/s (arbitration&data
> bitrate).
> 3. The MTU is set to 72 (sizeof(struct canfd_frame)) ; CAN_CTRLMODE_FD is
> set.
>
> For CAN FD frames the data bitrate can be increased like:
> "ip link set can0 up type can bitrate 1000000 dbitrate 4000000 fd on"
>
> So when CAN_CTRLMODE_FD is unset the controller should act like a "pure
> CAN2.0" node.
Yes & I am glad you clarified this expectation. I think we both agree on this. With my current submission status, the controller can act as a CAN FD node only. Do you agree that the check I had in ndo_open makes sense now?
Thanks,
Ramesh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-08 8:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-01 9:34 [PATCH] can: rcar_canfd: Add Renesas R-Car CAN FD driver Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
[not found] ` <1456824849-7987-1-git-send-email-ramesh.shanmugasundaram-kTT6dE0pTRh9uiUsa/gSgQ@public.gmane.org>
2016-03-01 20:41 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2016-03-02 8:41 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-02 9:20 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2016-03-02 10:08 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-02 10:21 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2016-03-03 13:48 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-01 21:07 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2016-03-02 8:45 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-03 15:38 ` [PATCH v2] " Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-05 4:30 ` Rob Herring
2016-03-07 9:33 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-06 11:32 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2016-03-07 8:02 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-07 8:08 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2016-03-07 8:32 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-08 7:46 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2016-03-08 8:57 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram [this message]
2016-03-08 12:25 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2016-03-08 12:48 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-08 17:16 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2016-03-11 7:14 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-12 18:49 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2016-03-15 9:48 ` [PATCH v3] " Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-15 12:51 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2016-03-15 14:26 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-18 21:07 ` Rob Herring
2016-03-21 16:45 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] Add CAN FD driver support to r8a7795 SoC Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-21 16:45 ` [PATCH 1/2] can: rcar_canfd: Add Renesas R-Car CAN FD driver Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-21 16:45 ` [PATCH 2/2] can: rcar_can: Move Renesas CAN driver to rcar dir Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-03-31 20:51 ` [PATCH v2] can: rcar_canfd: Add Renesas R-Car CAN FD driver Marc Kleine-Budde
2016-04-01 12:48 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-04-13 6:25 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-04-28 6:27 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2016-04-28 12:31 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-04-28 12:23 ` [PATCH v5 0/2] Add CAN FD driver support to r8a7795 SoC Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-04-28 12:23 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] can: rcar_canfd: Add Renesas R-Car CAN FD driver Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-05-03 16:47 ` Rob Herring
2016-05-04 6:23 ` Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
2016-04-28 12:23 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] can: rcar_can: Move Renesas CAN driver to rcar dir Ramesh Shanmugasundaram
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=SG2PR06MB1038B71C7921984611F72CF5C3B20@SG2PR06MB1038.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com \
--to=ramesh.shanmugasundaram@bp.renesas.com \
--cc=Chris.Paterson2@renesas.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=galak@codeaurora.org \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk \
--cc=linux-can@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mkl@pengutronix.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=socketcan@hartkopp.net \
--cc=wg@grandegger.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).