Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220726210217.3368497-1-dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com>
 <20220726210217.3368497-9-dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com>
 <20220727113054.ffcckzlcipcxer2c@pengutronix.de> <CABGWkvrmbQcCHdZ_ANb+_196d9HsAxAHc4QS94R19v5STHcbiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220727172101.iw3yiynni6feft4v@pengutronix.de> <CABGWkvqF4HSKVrO8W8oyDPCMfx_B2xQZ_EWET11RZb6k8Kmb=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220727193313.71d54ce0.max@enpas.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220727193313.71d54ce0.max@enpas.org>
From:   Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jul 2022 20:23:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CABGWkvrTga4yyx0Fh99NKkj4vJPy_goOAFGaB1BCj6xONqBCAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 8/9] can: slcan: add support to set bit time
 register (btr)
To:     Max Staudt <max@enpas.org>
Cc:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-can@vger.kernel.org,
        Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>,
        michael@amarulasolutions.com,
        Amarula patchwork <linux-amarula@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Jeroen Hofstee <jhofstee@victronenergy.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hello Marc and Max,

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 7:33 PM Max Staudt <max@enpas.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 19:28:45 +0200
> Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 7:21 PM Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok - We avoided writing bit timing registers from user space into the
> > > hardware for all existing drivers. If there isn't a specific use case,
> > > let's skip this patch. If someone comes up with a use case we can think
> > > of a proper solution.
> >
> > Ok. So do I also remove the 7/9 "ethtool: add support to get/set CAN
> > bit time register"
> > patch ?
>
> If I may answer as well - IMHO, yes.
>
> Unless we know that BTR is something other than just a different way to
> express the bitrate, I'd skip it, yes. Because bitrate is already
> handled by other, cross-device mechanisms.

Thanks to both of you for the explanations.
Regards,

Dario

>
>
> Max

-- 

Dario Binacchi

Embedded Linux Developer

dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com

__________________________________


Amarula Solutions SRL

Via Le Canevare 30, 31100 Treviso, Veneto, IT

T. +39 042 243 5310
info@amarulasolutions.com

www.amarulasolutions.com