| ??? 08/29/11 20:50 Read: times |
#183530 - One byte Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I would prefer to only have one byte in each message - the first - having the ninth bit set.
One problem with the ninth bit set in the checksum, is that the checksum byte can look identical to the address of a slave, falsely look like the start of a message. It's much easier to follow the address byte with a command + length - unless length can be always be deduced from the command numbers, in which case there isn't a need for any length byte. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Multiprocessor Communication 8052 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| where is bottleneck? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That's the usual approach | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| one comment | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 9th Bit - How ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| how to use bit 9 for data bytes? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| one form of 9th bit use | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| One byte | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| One Byte !!! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re: 1 byte - MDB | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Strong work | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Just as there is a timeout | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| my reason | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Protocol should preferably support dry-counting for EOP pos | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Methods in brief | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| At least 1 packet less (sic) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Neither! | 01/01/70 00:00 |