Vitaliy wrote:
> Once you have the workhorse routines in place, it looks just like
> UART...

I'm just starting to get into CAN now, but I don't see how CAN maps to a
UART nicely.  A UART is just a bi-directional stream of bytes.  In most
cases there is no out of band control information (RTS/CTS are rarely used
these days, for example).

CAN on the other hand is based on discrete messages coming asynchronously
from multiple sources on the bus.  You don't send a stream of bytes of
arbitrary length from here to there.  You broadcast and listen to short
packets, each identified by its meaning.

CAN is a very different peer to peer networking strategy from multiple point
to point streams of bytes, like TCP or a UART.  You could put a wrapper
around basic CAN to give you that, but then you're not programming to CAN
anymore and I wouldn't call it a CAN interface.  This is just like TCP is
it's own interface and not a way to do IP.  Common ethernet TCP
implementation happen to be layered on IP, but you don't see that from the
TCP level.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist