Re: [RFC PATCH 3/6] can: dev: add helper macros to setup an error frame

[Dario Binacchi]

Hello Marc,

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 10:00 PM Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 14.10.2024 17:24:18, Dario Binacchi wrote:
> > These helpers can prevent errors and code duplication when setting up a
> > CAN error frame.
>
> I personally don't like the ideas of using macros here. Is there a
> reason not to use static inline functions?

I thought that the use of macros would certainly not introduce
additional overhead
compared to the previous version. In version 2, I will replace the
macros with inline
functions.

I noticed that the ACK error is handled differently by the drivers.

bxcan, flexcan, slcan, rcar_can.c, and xilinx_can, for example:
cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_ACK;
cf->data[3] = CAN_ERR_PROT_LOC_ACK;

at91_can, mcp251xfd-core:
cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_ACK;
cf->data[2] |= CAN_ERR_PROT_TX;

cc770, kvaser_pciefd and es58x_core only
cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_ACK;

So, what is the correct/best way to notify a CAN frame error from an ACK?

Thanks and regards,
Dario

>
> Marc
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde          |
> Embedded Linux                   | https://www.pengutronix.de |
> Vertretung Nürnberg              | Phone: +49-5121-206917-129 |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9   |



-- 

Dario Binacchi

Senior Embedded Linux Developer

dario.binacchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

__________________________________


Amarula Solutions SRL

Via Le Canevare 30, 31100 Treviso, Veneto, IT

T. +39 042 243 5310
info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

www.amarulasolutions.com