I am not sure what is being asked. Is this it?
The change will be made to mbbiRecord, mbbiDirectRecord, mbboRecord, and
mbboDirectRecord.
For each, SPC_NOMOD will no longer be specified for SHFT.
For all existing mbbi, mbbo, mbbiDirect, mbboDirect device support in
base statements like the following
pmbbo->shft = pvmeio->signal;
will be changed to
if(pmbbo->shft==0) pmbbo->shft = pvmeio->signal;
1) Do we really want to do the later?
2) What about all the support not in base?
3) Where will this be documented?
This also does not seem to address Bob Dalesio's concern about what
happens when links are modified dynamically.
For bi, bo records signal is used to select bit in register. For
mbbi,mbbi it was used to select low order bit in register. Do we really
want to change this convention?
Marty Kraimer
- Replies:
- Re: MBBI, SHFT, and GDCT Ralph Lange
- References:
- Re: MBBI, SHFT, and GDCT Bob Dalesio
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: increasing scan rates William Lupton
- Next:
Re: ADL file formats Peregrine McGehee
- 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: MBBI, SHFT, and GDCT Bob Dalesio
- Next:
Re: MBBI, SHFT, and GDCT Ralph Lange
- 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
|