On 02/14/2011 02:15 PM, Subhasish Ghosh wrote:

Hello,

The problem with the "all" implementation is that it hogs the ARM/DSP
heavily and that's the reason why we specifically avoided this in our
firmware design.
Hence, implementing this condition spoils the whole purpose of the PRU!!

Well, I doubt that a CAN controller just supporting 8 CAN identifiers
will make many CAN users happy. Anyway, the CAN identifiers could/should
be configured via SysFS files (as Marc suggested).

Wolfgang.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Marc Kleine-Budde" <redacted>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 3:05 PM
To: "Subhasish Ghosh" <subhasish-EvXpCiN+lbve9wHmmfpqLFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "Wolfgang Grandegger" <redacted>; "Kurt Van Dijck"
[off-list ref];
[off-list ref];
[off-list ref]; [off-list ref];
[off-list ref]; [off-list ref]; "open list:CAN NETWORK
DRIVERS" [off-list ref]; "open list:CAN NETWORK
DRIVERS" [off-list ref]; "open list"
[off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/13] can: pruss CAN driver.

Hello,

On 02/14/2011 09:45 AM, Subhasish Ghosh wrote:

quoted

That is correct, we receive only pre-programmed CAN ids and "all" or
"range" implementation is not there in the PRU firmware.

I'd really like to see that you add a "all" implementation to the
firmware. Or even better use the standard id/mask approach.

cheers, Marc