This does seem like a good idea - to be able to set multiple parameters in a single call. But I'm wondering about maintaining another data structure so similar toInterfaceCanParams. Maybe, but I'm not totally convinced. Should we consider one structure and use a read/modify/write pattern similar to other Linux kernel API's? Or consider another way to structure the data? Shouldn't we also have a builder (pattern) for the parameters to be set?

But if we do go with what you suggest - a separate struct of all optional, settable parameters,

• Did we get all of them?
• Don't we want a matching getter?
• Shouldn't we be able to initialize fromInterfaceCanParams?
• Should we reconsider the name?SetCanParams reads like a verb. And these are specifically the interface parameters. So,SettableInterfaceCanParams? Although thatis a bit long.

I wonder what happened here,@fpagliughi. You say in above comment, you merge with the existingInterfaceCanParams but in the repository I see the other approach with a newSetCanParams struct. Did you change your mind?
If not and you want theInterfaceCanParams approach, I have a commit ready for you to pick uphere.

Thedevelop branch. I was on the road without any CANbus hardware, and I want to test it before promoting it tomaster. Apologies for the confusion.