Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System
It has been several weeks since a message has been sent about
adding RAWL, RAWH to the ai and ao records. Thus I am assuming
that everyone who had a strong opinion has responded.
This message attempts to summarize the responses.
The majority of the responses did not think it is a good
idea to add these fields. Perhaps the best reason is that
given by an Application Developer. The response was:
Q. What am I supposed to put in the RAWH and RAWL fields ?
A. You might not have to put anything in there, but then again, you might.
Q. How do I know ?
A. It depends on the device type you are using.
Q. My device type is thisDeviceHere. Do I need to worry about it ?
A. You have to ask the author of the device support.
Q. Who's that ?
A. < no answer >
Several other negative responses were given by device/driver developer's.
The comments indicated that RAW/RAWH are only sometimes a problem and,
in any case, a small subset of the problems. Thus adding these fields
will not be much help. A couple of responses indicated that for particular
cases they are a big help.
Several device/driver developers stated that they used the parm field
(often with INST_IO which has only a parm field) to solve their problem.
The responses also showed that the parm field needed a lot of syntax
associated with it in order to solve the problem.
Several responses stated that we need a hardware configuration tool.
This is something we have realized for a long time but have never been
able to get a consensus on what it should be or do.
As a result of the RAWL/RAWH discussion I also got a message from Ralph Lange
that gave some ideas he and several other people at BESSY came up with when
they discussed the hardware configuration problem.
This lead to several E-mail messages between them, a few LANL developers,
and a few APS developers. Maybe this may lead to something.
I will send the last E-mail I sent on to them. No one responded
to it so that means that either everyone was getting tired or else
there was no basic disagreement.
Marty Kraimer
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Using g++ with 3.13 beta2 Nick Rees
- Next:
Hardware Configuration Marty Kraimer
- 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:
Re: Using g++ with 3.13 beta2 Kazuro FURUKAWA
- Next:
Hardware Configuration Marty Kraimer
- 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