On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > On Tuesday, November 03, 2015 at 05:56:53 PM, Aleksander Morgado wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Aleksander Morgado >> >> <aleksan...@aleksander.es> wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >> >>> , or the duplex TX/RX setup for channels >> >>> (channels are either RX or TX, not both), or the local >> >>> echoing/loopback (which wouldn't make much sense for TX-only >> >>> channels). >> >> >> >> Aren't the RX-only/TX-only channels rather a special case ? >> > >> > They're actually the only case AFAIK. You've got systems generating >> > streams of ARINC429 words (e.g. the IRS, the FMC...) and systems that >> > may consume the streams from multiple independent channels (e.g. the >> > IFE). I try to think of each logical bus as a single transmitter >> > broadcasting to multiple receivers. >> >> I've re-checked the spec and it does say that there may be systems >> that act as source (TX) and sink (RX), e.g. DME, VOR or ILS. But in >> those cases, they will actually have separate TX and RX physical >> ports. > > So, considering that hi3593 which as 2x RX and 1x TX port, what about > registering one device per port and be done with it ?
Yes, as long as the RX device doesn't accept writing, and the TX device doesn't accept reading (except for echo I guess, if that ends up getting included), that would make sense. The kernel will need to specify somehow the port type clearly. -- Aleksander https://aleksander.es -- 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
