On 19.07.2022 23:35:38, Vincent Mailhol wrote: > This series is a collection of patches targeting the CAN error > counter. The series is split in three blocks (with small relation to > each other). > > Several drivers uses the data[6] and data[7] fields (both of type u8) > of the CAN error frame to report those values. However, the maximum > size an u8 can hold is 255 and the error counter can exceed this value > if bus-off status occurs. As such, the first nine patches of this > series make sure that no drivers try to report txerr or rxerr through > the CAN error frame when bus-off status is reached. > > can_frame::data[5..7] are defined as being "controller > specific". Controller specific behaviors are not something desirable > (portability issue...) The tenth patch of this series specifies how > can_frame::data[5..7] should be use and remove any "controller > specific" freedom. The eleventh patch adds a flag to notify though > can_frame::can_id that data[6..7] were populated (in order to be > consistent with other fields). > > Finally, the twelfth and last patch add three macro values to specify > the different error counter threshold with so far was hard-coded as > magic numbers in the drivers. > > N.B.: > * patches 1 to 10 are for net (stable). > * patches 11 and 12 are for net-next (but depends on patches 1 to 10). IMHO the patches 1..10 are not so critical that they need to go upstream via net. Especially that we're already at -rc7. I'll take all via can-next, OK? regards, 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: PGP signature
