On 03/02/2016 07:10 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:

Hi Marek,

On 03/01/2016 10:23 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 03/01/2016 06:49 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

-#define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_STD_MASK		0x3ff
+#define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_STD_MASK		0x7ff
 #define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_XTD_MASK		0x1fffffff

You should use the CAN_SFF_MASK and CAN_EFF_MASK in your code instead of
defining you private IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_?TD_MASK definitions.

You won't have trapped into this problem then :-)

These are register bitfield definitions, so should I really ?

My OCD kicks in and tells me it'd be odd and inconsistent with the rest
of the bitfields, but if you prefer it that way, I'll just send an
updated patch.

Your bit mask is masking the CAN ID out of a given variable.
That's what CAN_SFF_MASK and CAN_EFF_MASK is made for.

So at least it should be:

#define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_STD_MASK		CAN_SFF_MASK
#define IFI_CANFD_RXFIFO_ID_ID_XTD_MASK		CAN_EFF_MASK

This is good, I will do this. Thanks!

Btw. These defines are _never_ referenced in ifi_canfd.c so they should be
removed anyway.

The documentation for this core is not available, so if you don't mind,
I'd like to keep those.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut