Matthias Fuchs wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
of course I can think of situations where some simple CAN mechanism might be helpful (e.g. simple hardware testing).
But do we really need this inside a bootloader? Surely not for a production build. But please keep on hacking!
On Monday 02 November 2009 13:50, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Matthias Fuchs wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
this patch conflicts with my simple SJA header posted some days ago
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-October/063097.html
together with a fix for two of our boards - which has not much to do with CAN. WD asked me to use a C struct to access the SJA1000.
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-October/062902.html
So where does this bring us? Either we want to use C structs for everything or decide it from patch to patch :-(
Then it should be changed, of course. This patch is far from being accepted and for the moment it's an implementation detail. I'm especially interested to hear if such a generic CAN interface would serve your purposes as well, as you require access to the SJA1000 somehow.
I just need to bit bang around in the OCR register. So no need for a full blown and flash consuming CAN implementation. Of course I could life with your register access style. Especially because it makes the code more common with Socket-CAN files which prevents us from rewriting fully functional code ;-)
Well, I think Wolfgang will tell me to use structs sooner than later.
Wolfgang.