| ??? 09/23/08 17:28 Read: times |
#158562 - Sorry Erick, Couldn't reply you earlier Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Wrote:
is that the same card every time? Not that particular, the next card can be any one or same, but not usually that one That means you do not have 9-bit address ID, is the ID of the terminal you address in a checksummed record? does the terminals only acceot the address when the cksm matches? Yes, I implemented 9-bit address ID, in which only that particular card reply, further Terminal's ID is also validated and every communication between PC and Card is checked summed at both ends before acceptance and otherwise discarded by hardware or software at PC.. Regards, |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| MAX1483 problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| and terminated?? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Comm Packet Receive Validation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I agree with Michael | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sorry Erick, Couldn't reply you earlier | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| how did you do that with a PC as the master? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 9 bit | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
after I posted | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| half-duplex networking | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Watchdog function common | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Only one transmitter at a time. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| suggest from third countries... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Something else to consider | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| too late, but for others | 01/01/70 00:00 |