On Tuesday, November 03, 2015 at 08:28:43 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> On 11/03/2015 08:19 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 03, 2015 at 07:03:26 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> >> On 11/03/2015 06:41 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 03, 2015 at 06:32:12 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> It looks like you need to shift the stuff in user space every time.
> >>>>
> >>>> So you might better think of something like this:
> >>>> struct a429_frame {
> >>>>
> >>>> __u32 label; /* ARINC 429 label */
> >>>> __u8 length; /* always set to 8 */
> >>>> __u8 __pad; /* padding */
> >>>> __u8 __res0; /* reserved / padding */
> >>>> __u8 __res1; /* reserved / padding */
> >>>> __u32 data __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> >>>> __u8 p; /* p */
> >>>> __u8 ssm; /* ssm */
> >>>> __u8 sdi; /* sdi */
> >>>> __u8 __end; /* padding */
> >>>>
> >>>> };
> >>>
> >>> You don't want to interpret those P(arity)/SSM/SDI bits, since they
> >>> differ depending on whatever the remote party sends. That's why I
> >>> decided to just make those into 3-bytes of data and let the userland
> >>> application deal with it as seen fit. Besides, the ARINC "FTP" really
> >>> uses those 3 bytes as plain data.
> >>
> >> Ok. I did not know what P was for :-)
> >
> > Oh yeah. P is parity and it's optional as well and can be odd/even
> > depending on the remote endpoint (sigh).
> >
> >> Btw. it can make sense to introduce an union struct where different
> >> options to access the content are possible.
> >
> > This would be pretty nasty I think. By reading the ARINC specification,
> > the SSM can be either 2 or 3 bits, the SDI is who-knows-what depending
> > on the remote endpoint and the P is also not always present. I'm not
> > convinced that the kernel should interpret the 3 byte ARINC payload in
> > any way. (but I wonder if my argument presented above is convincing at
> > all either ...).
>
> Right.
>
> When we define a user visible data structure, this is written into stone.
>
> When ARINC isn't even sure about the detailed interpretation we should
> definitely keep our fingers away from doing it ourselves.
Right. Besides, such extension to the ABI can be done later if the need
arises (which I seriously doubt), can't it ? Handling the payload as a CAN
payload makes sense.
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
--
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
