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 Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
