On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 21:57:17 +0100 Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 17.03.2022 21:23:59, Max Staudt wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 23:04:08 +0100 > > Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On 09.03.2022 22:49:49, Vincent Mailhol wrote: > > > > Either we agree that using can_rx_offload without implementing > > > > the mailbox_read() is OK and in that case, the can_rx_offload > > > > framework should be modified to allow mailbox_read() to be a > > > > NULL pointer. > > > > > > > > Either it is not the case and you use the more classic > > > > netif_rx(). > > > > > > > > And I do not have the answer. I haven't studied can_rx_offload > > > > enough to be a judge here. Sorry. > > > > > > > > @Marc, any thoughts? > > > > > > Use can_rx_offload_add_manual() instead. > > > > m-( > > > > Yes, it's right underneath _add_fifo() and does the right thing. No > > idea how I missed it, I thought I had looked through all variants. > > I think that function was not there form the beginning, maybe you > looked at the rx-offload code when it was not available. Indeed, it was added in 5.10, and my rx-offload work likely just about missed that. Thanks! Max
