Hi All,
This is to present the updated CAN message structure.
*Updating the CAN message structure:*
struct can_message {
uint32_t id; // 32 bits to support extended id (29 bits)
uint32_t timestamp;
uint16_t flags; // RTR | BRS | EXT ...
uint16_t len;
uint8_t data[64]; // For supporting data transfer up to 64 bytes.
};
Regards
Prashanth S
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 14:43, Oliver Hartkopp <socket...@hartkopp.net>
wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> I'm not subscribed to the RTEMS ML so my mail has not been forwarded.
>
> I'm with you about the 16 bit length info.
>
> See below ...
>
> On 6/21/22 08:55, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I'm definitely with Pavel's suggestions here!
> >
> > I added some small remarks regarding the current CAN XL discussion
> in-line:
> >
> > On 20.06.22 22:57, Pavel Pisa wrote:
> >> Hello Prashanth S and others,
> >>
> >> excuse me for lower activity last weeks. We have exams period
> >> and I have lot of other duties and was even ill. I am at Embedded
> >> World in Nuremberg now, so may it be there is some chance to meet
> >> somebody other from RTEMS community.
> >>
> >> As for the e-mail it is better to add one of my personal e-mails
> >> (p...@cmp.felk.cvut.cz or pp...@pikron.com)
> >> to notice me for something important, I do not check every
> >> message comming through my list subscription. I go through
> >> RTEMS, NuttX, CAN, etc. forums only when I have spare time.
> >>
> >> On Monday 20 of June 2022 18:37:38 Prashanth S wrote:
> >>> This is a request for suggestions and feedback for the CAN message
> >>> structure.
> >>>
> >>> *CAN message structure that represents the can messages from
> >>> application to
> >>> driver:*
> >>>
> >>> struct can_message {
> >>> uint32_t timestamp;
> >>> uint32_t id; // 32 bits to support extended id (29
> bits)
> >>> uint16_t flags; // RTR | BRS | EXT ...
> >>> uint8_t dlc; // (0 - 8) | 12 | 16 | 20 | 24 | 32 | 48
> >>> | 64
> >>> uint8_t res; // reserved for alignment.
> >>> uint8_t data[64]; // For supporting data transfer up to 64
> >>> bytes.
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> This is the CAN messages structure created based on the suggestions
> >>> in the
> >>> mail chain and looking through other CAN solutions (Nuttx, GRCAN,
> >>> LinCAN).
> >>
> >> Yes I like solution with explicit and aligned fields.
> >> I confirm that I think that length representing real data length is
> >> better
> >> and it has been chosen for CAN FD by SocketCAN.
> >
> > Yes. Handling the DLC/Length conversion in every user program is a mess.
> > That's why we actually changed the dlc to len even for Classical CAN
> > frames in the struct can_frame:
> >
> > struct can_frame {
> > canid_t can_id; /* 32 bit CAN_ID + EFF/RTR/ERR flags */
> > union {
> > /* CAN frame payload length in byte (0 .. CAN_MAX_DLEN)
> > * was previously named can_dlc so we need to carry that
> > * name for legacy support
> > */
> > __u8 len;
> > __u8 can_dlc; /* deprecated */
> > } __attribute__((packed)); /* disable padding added in some
> > ABIs */
> > __u8 __pad; /* padding */
> > __u8 __res0; /* reserved / padding */
> > __u8 len8_dlc; /* optional DLC for 8 byte payload length (9 ..
> > 15) */
> > __u8 data[CAN_MAX_DLEN] __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> > };
> >
> > You might also think about a union to carry the Classical CAN length and
> > the CAN FD length in one 8 bit value and add the extra Classical CAN raw
> > DLC in another 8 bit value - and make a union with a 16 bit length value
> > which is needed for CAN XL.
> >
> >
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/include/uapi/linux/can.h?id=ea7800565a128c1adafa1791ce80afd6016fe21c
> >
> >
> > But in fact the raw DLC value has been introduced only because of some
> > people doing security testing. The Classical CAN raw DLC value has no
> > value for normal CAN applications and therefore using a simple 16 bit
> > length value would be the best choice IMHO (see below).
> >
> >> I confirm that flags implemented with explicit sized field seem to be
> >> more
> >> safe to me. Bitfields are tricky due to endianing and have problem with
> >> initialization and copying when new field is added.
> >>
> >> I am not sure if the field name "dlc" (data length code) is right
> >> when the field represents real length, may be "len" is a better
> >> match.
> >
> > Yes, definitely!
> >
> >> I think that fields order makes sense as well (alignment, purpose
> etc..).
> >> Only think to consider is possibility to swap
> >>
> >> uint32_t timestamp;
> >> uint32_t id;
> >>
> >> because id is the first and the most important and accessed field,
> >> so when the pointer to structure is give it can be small win
> >> on some targets that it can be accessed without offset addition.
> >> But that is probably neglectable and there can be arguments against.
> >
> > The 'id' really defines the CAN frame so it can be seen as a 'key' -
> > like in a data base. It makes sense to put it first.
> >
> > Btw. adding RTR and EXT to the flags field is something I would do today
> > too. Good choice!
> >
> >> Another think to consider is a size of "dlc" and or "len" code.
> >> There is ongoing standardization process for CAN XL and it
> >> would allow CAN frames up to 2kB and the length will be with
> >> byte granularity. But CAN XL adds datatype filed and much more
> >> options so it is probably out of the actual RTEMS scope
> >> and would require variable length read and write systemcalls
> >> because 2kB overhead for some 1 or 2 byte message is too high.
> >>
> >> So even 8 bit length field is OK for now and may be res field
> >> can solve CAN XL compatibility one day.
> >
> > Why not defining the len as an uint16_t right now?
> >
> > In fact we (at SocketCAN) need to move the length structure element for
> > CAN XL now which is no fun.
> >
> > As you would have a 16 bit length field and a 16 bit flags field you
> > will be CAN XL ready from the beginning.
> >
> > The only element that needs to be introduced 'before' the data[] is the
> > 32 bit acceptance field ('AF').
> >
> > The fact whether AF is present or not could probably be determined by a
> > CAN XL flag in the flags element.
> >
> > The 8 bit virtual CAN ID (vcid) of CAN XL will likely not be visible in
> > struct canxl_frame as the vcid will be transported and accessed similar
> > to the vlan id in ethernet in Linux. You will need to create a tagged
> > network interface analogue to the ethernet vlan handling.
> >
> >> So generally I agree with the message structure, I declare
> >> minor weight vote to switch from "dlc" to "len".
> >> I think that switch to common message structure based API
> >> on RTEMS would be big win and that (at least for
> >> now) keeping character device like API with IOCTLs
> >> is simpler and matches better actual RTEMS CAN implementations.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Pavel
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Oliver
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
