EPICS Controls 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  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  Index 1994  1995  <19961997  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: Should ai, ao records have RAWH, RAWL?
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 12:09:15 -0700
In response to the following:
> 
> Last week during a visit at DESY, Gabor Csuka
> suggested that the ai and ao records should have two additional
> fields RAWH and RAWL. The reason is that often it is possible
> to create common device support for a set of modules that differ
> only in the number of bits and/or polarity.
> 
> 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

If adding RAWH and RAWL fields to ao and
ai record it would seem prudent to add a
field describing the conversion method
as well, such as two's compliment,
offset binary, or something else. 
You may also want to indicate how 0 in 
adc/dac counts is mapped (ie: RAWZ ), with
the default set to 0. 

I'm guessing that the original suggestion 
assumed a two's compliment method with 0
(amps or volts) mapped to 0 (adc/dac counts)
for a bipolar device.


    - Kristi Luchini
---------------------------------------------------------
Kristi Luchini  Internet  [email protected]
SLAC            Voice     (415) 926-3417  



Navigate by Date:
Prev: Re: Should ai, ao records have RAWH, RAWL? Ned Arnold
Next: Re: A multiway switch record for the new switchable links. Tim Mooney
Index: 1994  1995  <19961997  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? Ned Arnold
Next: Re: Should ai, ao records have RAWH, RAWL? Nick Rees
Index: 1994  1995  <19961997  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 
ANJ, 10 Aug 2010 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·