Subject: Re: [PATCH] pch_can: fix error passive level test

From: Wolfgang Grandegger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:05:45 +0100

On 12/12/2011 08:16 AM, Xi Wang wrote:
> The test (((errc & PCH_REC) >> 8) > 127) would always be false because
> the receive error counter ((errc & PCH_REC) >> 8) is at most 127, where
> PCH_REC is defined as 0x7f00.  To test whether the receive error counter
> has reached the error passive level, the RP bit (15) should be used.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xi Wang <[email-masked]>

Acked-by: Wolfgang Grandegger <[email-masked]>

The C_CAN driver, which supports the same CAN controller, does handle
the error passive state correctly. This reminds me to get rid of pch_can
in favor of C_CAN sooner than later.

Thanks,

Wolfgang.