ssion.
>
> Feel free to send in a PR I'll review it.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Peter van der Perk
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Javier Casas Marin
> Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 5:25 PM
> To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Re: socket CAN timestamp mi
, March 6, 2025 5:25 PM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Subject: Re: Re: socket CAN timestamp missing
Hi Peter,
I was thinking about that, the thing is that we are using Nuttx as a submodule
in our system and we haven't updated it in a while so right now we are using a
quite older version and I&#
sincerely,
>
> Peter van der Perk
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Javier Casas Marin
> Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 2:59 PM
> To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: socket CAN timestamp missing
>
> Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking
Hi Javier,
Good to hear.
If it working fine for you with the fix, feel free to send a PR into upstream
NuttX.
Yours sincerely,
Peter van der Perk
-Original Message-
From: Javier Casas Marin
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 2:59 PM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Subject: Re: socket CAN
Hi Peter,
Thanks for answering. You are right, moving the timestamp generation back
up fixes the issue and it makes more sense to have the code there, before
branching the code flow, than having it duplicated in both paths.
Thanks!
Javier Casas Marín
Geotab
Senior Embedded Systems Developer
Di
Hi Javier,
I think it's a regression from the IOB rewrite.
The original implementation added the timestamp before calling either
devif_conn_event or can_data_event.
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/blob/55d9e5f7af05e75ca62f57863b880d723aa83c56/net/can/can_callback.c#L123-136
I think moving the c
