Re: [PATCH RFC] can: add optional DLC element to Classical CAN frame structure

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 27.10.20 15:53, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
On 10/27/20 3:49 PM, Kurt Van Dijck wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 14:48:30 +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
On 10/27/20 2:23 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
On 27.10.20 14:06, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
On 10/23/20 10:30 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:


No. It is 'Classical CAN'. I'm not very happy with that naming as there
was already a 'CAN2.0B' specification to separate from the first version
which only had 11 Bit identifiers. This could be Ancient CAN now :-D

So Classical CAN is CAN2.0B?

For example there was a press release to harmonize the CAN transceiver nameing
recently:

https://can-cia.org/news/press-releases/view/harmonized-transceiver-naming/2020/7/16/

Yes, there you can find:

"CAN high-speed transceivers might be used in Classical CAN, CAN FD, or
CAN XL networks"

What happened to 'Standard CAN' (<= CAN2.0A) and 'Extended CAN' (CAN2.0B)?
Did those names became fossils now?

As far as I understand Classical CAN is CAN2.0B

http://www.microcontrol.net/wissen/bus-systeme/can-fd/

As CAN2.0B covers CAN2.0A you are somehow right.

BR,
Oliver



[Index of Archives]     [Automotive Discussions]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [CAN Bus]

  Powered by Linux