Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 0/7] Add Fieldbus subsystem + support HMS Profinet card | From | "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <> | Date | Tue, 16 Apr 2019 18:49:35 +0200 |
| |
On 15.04.19 20:31, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
Hi,
>> Maybe it would be better calling it "IEC-61158" instead of "fieldbus" ?>>> > Yes, we are certainly open to that, if it is more correct and/or better> accepted by users. Thanks, I'd really appreciate that :)
Maybe I'm a bit beaurocratic here, but I really believe that precise naming is important, eg. for avoiding potential conflicts w/ different fieldbus classes (eg. mvb) that might come in the future.
> Yes. You can open as many handles to the device as you like, > they will all share the fieldbus memory. When the remote > fieldbus memory changes, that event will be broadcast to > all open handles, via poll/select.
Great. When I read your first mail, I got reminded on the old legacy canbus chardevs (before cansocket came in) that was single-user only.
By the way: any special reason for doing this via device instead of socket (like we have w/ can) ?
I'm, personally, pretty undecided which way is better. Device nodes give us easy access control via fs permissions, while socket allows firewalling.
--mtx
-- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult Free software and Linux embedded engineering info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287
| |