On 12/15/20 3:51 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>>> +static const u8 len2dll_len[] = {
>>>> + 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, /* 0 - 8 */
>>>> + 12, 12, 12, 12, /* 9 - 12 */
>>>> + 16, 16, 16, 16, /* 13 - 16 */
>>>> + 20, 20, 20, 20, /* 17 - 20 */
>>>> + 24, 24, 24, 24, /* 21 - 24 */
>>>> + 32, 32, 32, 32, 32, 32, 32, 32, /* 25 - 32 */
>>>> + 40, 40, 40, 40, 40, 40, 40, 40, /* 33 - 40 */
>>>> + 48, 48, 48, 48, 48, 48, 48, 48 /* 41 - 48 */
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> I totally misunderstood what you wanted to do in my previous
>>> email. I thought that the numbers were placeholders and that
>>> the final goal was to take into account the CRC as you previously
>>> mentioned in your first email.
>>
>> Sorry, should have been clearer about functionality of that table/function.
>>
>>> This function is just here to sanitize the data length, right?
>>> Then we could simply name it can_fd_sanitize_len().
>>
>> sanitized_len sounds good.
>
> Yes and once you are a it:
>
> Won't it make more sense to use
>
> return can_fd_dlc2len(can_fd_len2dlc(len));
I'm using that construct in the mcp251xfd driver, too. Will remove the table....
> instead of creating a new table telling the same as the existing static
> const u8 len2dlc[] table?
Can we get rid of the pad table in ISOTP aswell? :)
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
