Should ai, ao records have RAWH, RAWL?

[Marty Kraimer <mrk@aps.anl.gov>]

Last week during a visit at DESY, Gabor Csuka
suggested that the ai and ao records should have two additional
fields RAWH and RAWL. The reason is that often it is possible
to create common device support for a set of modules that differ
only in the number of bits and/or polarity.

I expressed concern that this opens door to an unlimited
set of configuration fields. After discussion I had to agree
that these two fields  are generic enough that perhaps
we should add them. They would not impact any existing support
but future support could use them.

For example if a device is a bi-polar 12 bit adc the fields would
be

RAWH 2047 RAWL -2048

If the device is a 14 bit unipolar adc the fields would be:

RAWH 16383 RAWL 0


Comments anyone?

Marty Kraimer