Hello Marc, On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 10:00 PM Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 14.10.2024 17:24:18, Dario Binacchi wrote: > > These helpers can prevent errors and code duplication when setting up a > > CAN error frame. > > I personally don't like the ideas of using macros here. Is there a > reason not to use static inline functions? I thought that the use of macros would certainly not introduce additional overhead compared to the previous version. In version 2, I will replace the macros with inline functions. I noticed that the ACK error is handled differently by the drivers. bxcan, flexcan, slcan, rcar_can.c, and xilinx_can, for example: cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_ACK; cf->data[3] = CAN_ERR_PROT_LOC_ACK; at91_can, mcp251xfd-core: cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_ACK; cf->data[2] |= CAN_ERR_PROT_TX; cc770, kvaser_pciefd and es58x_core only cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_ACK; So, what is the correct/best way to notify a CAN frame error from an ACK? Thanks and regards, Dario > > Marc > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | > Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | > Vertretung Nürnberg | Phone: +49-5121-206917-129 | > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 | -- Dario Binacchi Senior Embedded Linux Developer dario.binacchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx __________________________________ Amarula Solutions SRL Via Le Canevare 30, 31100 Treviso, Veneto, IT T. +39 042 243 5310 info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.amarulasolutions.com
