Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] can: refactoring of can-dev module and of Kbuild

[Vincent MAILHOL]

On Mon. 6 Jun. 2022, at 05:46, Max Staudt <max@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 20:06:41 +0200
> Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 05.06.2022 19:23:47, Max Staudt wrote:
> > > This seemingly splits drivers into "things that speak to hardware"
> > > and "things that don't". Except... slcan really does speak to
> > > hardware.

slcan is just an oddity in this regard because all the netlink logic
is done in userspace using slcand. I think that it would really
benefit to be rewritten using the features under CAN_NETLINK.

This way, it could for example benefit from can_priv::bitrate_const to
manage the bitrates via iproute2 instead of relying on slcand c.f.:
https://elinux.org/Bringing_CAN_interface_up#SLCAN_based_Interfaces

Similarly, it doesn't seem that slcan loopbacks the TX frames which,
in some way, violates one of the core concepts of SocketCAN:

https://docs.kernel.org/networking/can.html#local-loopback-of-sent-frames

You did a great job by putting all the logic in your can327 driver
instead of requiring a userland tool and I think slcan merits to have
your can327 improvements backported to him.

> It just so happens to not use any of BITTIMING or
> > > RX_OFFLOAD. However, my can327 (formerly elmcan) driver, which is
> > > an ldisc just like slcan, *does* use RX_OFFLOAD, so where to I put
> > > it? Next to flexcan, m_can, mcp251xfd and ti_hecc?
> > >
> > > Is it really just a split by features used in drivers, and no
> > > longer a split by virtual/real?
> >
> > We can move RX_OFFLOAD out of the "if CAN_NETLINK". Who wants to
> > create an incremental patch against can-next/master?
>
> Yes, this may be useful in the future. But for now, I think I can
> answer my question myself :)

I was about to answer you, but you corrected the shot before I had
time to do so :)

> My driver does support Netlink to set CAN link parameters. So I'll just
> drop it into the CAN_NETLINK -> RX_OFFLOAD category in Kconfig, unless
> anyone objects.

This is the correct approach (and the only one). Try to maintain the
alphabetical order of the menu when you add it.

> I just got confused because in my mind, I'm still comparing it to
> slcan, whereas in reality, it's now functionally closer to all the other
> hardware drivers. Netlink and all.
>
> Apologies for the noise!

No problem!


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol