>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
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
VMIC 4514 board. Nick Rees
- Next:
Regarding Duke's FEL Laboratory Carl Dickey
- 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: Camac BJO
- Next:
CALC records Steve Lewis
- 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
|