Hi, > I was thinking about this and I mostly agree with you. Obviously, copying the > code this way was dumb. On the other hand, ARINC and CAN are two different > sort > of busses, so I'd propose something slightly different here to avoid confusion > and prevent the future extensions (or protocols) from adding unrelated cruft > into the CAN stack.
Another major difference between CAN and ARINC429 is that ARINC is simplex. It does not need loopback and echo. For example HOLT IC chip HI-3593 has two receivers and single transmitter, which should be instantiated as separate devices, as each channel could be connected to different network. It would be nice if new ARINC framework will provide means to create RX or TX only network device and have -rx- or -tx- as part of device name. Label space in ARINC is much smaller than in CAN, is it really needed to have hash and masks? May be simple bitmap for 256 bits will fit better. At least it could be directly provided to mentioned HOLT chip to do filtering in hardware. -- Best regards, Andrey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
