Re: [oc] CAN core

[Shehryar Shaheen <shehryar.shaheen@ul.ie>]

That's corect

Byteflight is the way to go is certainly true or more
suitable will be FlexRay  as an when it comes out (Byteflight spec is
incorporated in FlexRay)

Which becomes 'THE" standard for by-wire applications is yet to be decided.

Since CAN is so widely used , it would be good to have a HDL implementation
of it.

A VHDL CAN IP license roughly costs 10,000 Euros!

For TTP/C , Yes! we have to be careful about layers! (for that matter any of
these protocols :) )

But I think we can go ahead with CAN (and hope there are no legal
implications!)

Or maybe all this is not such a good idea, I certainly don't want to go jail
for all this

Suggestions on this issue are welcomed!

Cheers!

Shehryar

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin.J Thompson" <Martin.J.Thompson@trw.com>
To: <cores@opencores.org>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [oc] CAN core


> >That's great!
> >
> >We 'CAN' :) first work on CAN and then move on to TT-CAN i.e Time
Triggered CAN
> >
>
> TT-CAN isn't going anywhere - byteflight would be the one to go with
(http://www.byteflight.org)
>
> >Also it would be good to have a HDL implmentation of TPP/C , what do u
say ? ofcourse we are talking
> >aboutCAN first.
> >
>
> If you mean TTP/C you'll probably have to be very careful about lawyers
:-(
>
> *** NOT speaking for TRW ! ***
>
> Martin
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from cores mailing list please visit
http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml

--
To unsubscribe from cores mailing list please visit http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml