EPICS Re: Should ai, ao records have RAWH, RAWL?

Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System

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	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
<== Date ==>		<== Thread ==>

Subject:	Re: Should ai, ao records have RAWH, RAWL?
From:	[email protected] (Ned Arnold)
To:	[email protected]
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 <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: Should ai, ao records have RAWH, RAWL? William Lupton; Next: Should ai, ao records have RAWH, RAWL? LUCHINI; 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