Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

1994  1995  <19961997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  Index 1994  1995  <19961997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Re: Should ai, ao records have RAWH, RAWL?
From: nda@aps.anl.gov (Ned Arnold)
To: tech-talk@aps.anl.gov
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 13:53:18 -0500
> I expressed concern that this opens door to an unlimited
> set of configuration fields. After discussion I had to agree
> that these two fields  are generic enough that perhaps
> we should add them. They would not impact any existing support
> but future support could use them.
> 
> For example if a device is a bi-polar 12 bit adc the fields would
> be
> 
> RAWH 2047 RAWL -2048
> 
> If the device is a 14 bit unipolar adc the fields would be:
> 
> RAWH 16383 RAWL 0
> 
> 
> Comments anyone?
> 
> Marty Kraimer



A "naive" application developer trying to define an AI record might have
the following questions ...

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 >


My first preference is to add device types for each type, even if they can use 
the same device support, e.g thisDevice_16bit, thisDevice_12bit, etc.
I know this makes the menus really long, but only those sites that use these
devices would be bothered by them. Another advantage is that they are SELF
DOCUMENTING  (except when using CAPFAST).

My second preference would be using the PARM field for devices that have too
numerous options for individual device types. 

	Ned
	


Navigate by Date:
Prev: Re: Should ai, ao records have RAWH, RAWL? William Lupton
Next: Should ai, ao records have RAWH, RAWL? LUCHINI
Index: 1994  1995  <19961997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Re: Should ai, ao records have RAWH, RAWL? William Lupton
Next: Should ai, ao records have RAWH, RAWL? LUCHINI
Index: 1994  1995  <19961997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017 
ANJ, 10 Aug 2010 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·