Hi there.
I mailed this comment to Marty and he encouraged me to post it to tech-talk
to have the discussion continue there, so - here it is:
First of all - You're right in that there's no basic disagreement from our
side:
Full agreement on the statement that to get all the functionality these
hardware records will have to be almost full size records - it's the prize
we will have to pay. (Maybe improves a lot of device supporter's under-
standing of record support ...?)
Full agreement on the idea to introduce support levels to change things
smoothly and only as much as needed.
Just to prove we're not fully asleep (yet) some additional thought:
----
I find underlying field buses quite a useful thing to configure using
hardware records (we almost CAN see it coming). Especially with on-line add
and delete adding new fieldbus nodes without rebooting the IOC would be
possible. But, in this case, there must be a way to have some kind of
hierarchical organized hardware records. E.g.:
One IOC has several VME cards (with card specific configuration like
interrupt level, card address) serving two field bus segments each (with
segment specific configuration info like segment speed). On each field bus
segment there's an arbitrary number of devices (specific configuration info
like node number, device name, type). Each device may have an arbitrary
number of accessible variables (with a certain data type, access type, id,
name each).
This example isn't over-generalized, it reflects exactly the structure of
our CAN subsystem. Right now, most of this information is squeezed into a
most cryptical INST_IO link. We would prefer having a symbolic variable
name in the link and resolving that into a hardware record with all the
configuration info in it.
So we get one hardware record type for the device support itself, one with
an instance for every VME card, one with an instance for every field bus
segment, one with an instance for every node and one with an instance for
every variable. All these should be level 2 (or level 1 at least).
Is this generally too much? How could such hierarchical records be linked
together in a way that device supports can (simply?) traverse them and
initialize all the needed things in the driver?
----
Is it really possible to allow CA links in hardware records? Doesn't that
cause problems within the IOC boot sequence, i.e. is it allowed to make CA
calls during iocInit?
----
What do you need processing hardware records for? (Just give an idea, I
just can't think of a useful application...)
----
So much for today...
Ralph
--
__ Ralph Lange Email: [email protected]
/\ \ WWW: http://www.bessy.de/~lange
/ \ \ BESSY II
/ /\ \ \ Berliner Elektronenspeicherring- Snail: BESSY II
/ / /\ \ \ Gesellschaft fuer Synchrotron- Rudower Chaussee 5
/ / /__\_\ \ strahlung m.b.H. D-12489 Berlin, Germany
/ / /________\ Phone: +49 30 6392-4862
\/___________/ Control System Group Fax: ... -4859
- References:
- Hardware Configuration Marty Kraimer
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: Using g++ with 3.13 beta2 Kazuro FURUKAWA
- Next:
A new subroutine record Andy Foster
- Index:
1994
1995
<1996>
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Hardware Configuration Marty Kraimer
- Next:
Re: Hardware Configuration Gabor Csuka
- Index:
1994
1995
<1996>
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|