Fix issue #13023, CAN constructor ignores passed speed.

[FabianInostroza]

Summary of changes

Fixes #13023.

Uses the passed speed to the constructor.

Impact of changes

Migration actions required

Documentation

---

Pull request type

[X] Patch update (Bug fix / Target update / Docs update / Test update / Refactor)
[] Feature update (New feature / Functionality change / New API)
[] Major update (Breaking change E.g. Return code change / API behaviour change)

---

Test results

[] No Tests required for this change (E.g docs only update)
[X] Covered by existing mbed-os tests (Greentea or Unittest)
[] Tests / results supplied as part of this PR

---

Reviewers

---

[ciarmcom]

@FabianInostroza, thank you for your changes.
@ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

[jeromecoutant]

Why it is not the same patch as #12113 ?

[0xc0170]

It took me a while to realize this is for 5.15 and

Why it is not the same patch as #12113 ?

is for master. thus the code difference. @FabianInostroza would it be better to backport 12113 to 5.15 rather? I would say yes as proposed.

[jeromecoutant]

@FabianInostroza would it be better to backport 12113 to 5.15 rather? I would say yes as proposed.

Hi @FabianInostroza
Did you succeed ?

[FabianInostroza]

Hi, Sorry for the delay. I've made the changes.

But I think that the peripheral should not be configured to a default speed and active (Normal) mode by just instantiating it. If the correct speed is set latter in the application this could cause issues because the device would send error frames.
Also I managed to crash mbed by powering the board while connected to a bad can bus network. There was just one active node that spammed the network with one message and that didn't provide the necessary 11 consecutive recessive bits to initialize the peripheral and can_frequency() in can_api.c just error() on that condition. It would be better if it returned an error code to inform the application.

@FabianInostroza would it be better to backport 12113 to 5.15 rather? I would say yes as proposed.

Hi @FabianInostroza
Did you succeed ?

[adbridge]

CI started

[0xc0170]

CI restarted

[mbed-ci]

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 10 of 10 test jobs passed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts

[adbridge]

Approved by @andypowers