Re: CAMAC

[watson@cds002.cebaf.gov]

>There are currently two schools of thought on the addressing of cAMAC.
>One puts the configuration parameters into a proliferation of DTYPs
>The other overloads the param field.
>Is there a way to install the driver that either will work?
>Should we standardizer on one or the other?
>Should we be tolerant until version 4 comes along and fiexs this problem?
>In the mean time which should be intsalled to demonstrate CAMAC.
>	Bob

I strongly urge no proliferation of DTYPs for modules with essentially
identical software.  It makes changing the software a nightmare, and forces
creating a new device type to describe a new module which behaves the
same as an old one.  A general purpose device is a better solution.
(biased of course since it is my design choice).

Chip