M_CAN message RAM initialization AppNote - was: Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] can: m_can: workaround for transmit data less than 4 bytes

[Oliver Hartkopp]

On 06.11.2014 02:57, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 07:15:10PM +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:

>> The Message RAM is usually equipped with a parity or ECC functionality.
>> But RAM cells suffer a hardware reset and can therefore hold
>> arbitrary content at startup - including parity and/or ECC bits.
>>
>> So when you write only the CAN ID and the first four bytes the last
>> four bytes remain untouched. Then the M_CAN starts to read in 32bit
>> words from the start of the Tx Message element. So it is very likely
>> to trigger the message RAM error when reading the uninitialized
>> 32bit word from the last four bytes.
>>
>> Finally it turns out that an initial writing (with any kind of data)
>> to the entire message RAM is mandatory to create valid parity/ECC
>> checksums.
>>
>> That's it.
>>
>
> Thanks for sharing this information.
> Does it mean this issue is related to the nature of Message RAM and is
> supposed to exist on all M_CAN IP versions?

 From what I know from the 3.1.x revision there's no change regarding IR.BRU 
and IR.BEC - so I would assume this to stay on all M_CAN IP revisions.

But after some sleep I wonder if this patch [3/3] would need an update too.

Writing to the TX message RAM is obviously no workaround but a valid and 
needed initialization process.

I would tend to make this patch:

---

can: m_can: add missing TX message RAM initialization

The M_CAN message RAM is usually equipped with a parity or ECC functionality.
But RAM cells suffer a hardware reset and can therefore hold arbitrary content 
at startup - including parity and/or ECC bits.

To prevent the M_CAN controller detecting checksum errors when reading 
potentially uninitialized TX message RAM content to transmit CAN frames the TX 
message RAM has to be written with (any kind of) initial data.

---

Then the code should memset() the entire TX FIFO element - and not only the 8 
data bytes we are addressing now.

Maybe it makes sense to send the entire updated patch set (3) again ...

[1/3] can: add can_is_canfd_skb() API
[2/3] can: m_can: update to support CAN FD features
[3/3] can: m_can: add missing message RAM initialization

Are you ok with that?

Regards,
Oliver