Timeline for Most efficient way to handle addressing / termination in a daisy-chained CAN bus?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2, 2013 at 23:29 | comment | added | Kortuk | @OlinLathrop If it is of long term use then the Q&A makes sense on here. Chat makes sense for more back and forth, it is not immediately obvious but there are many features they have done to allow people to have something more similar to a very advance email chain back and forth. The respond features and such. The chat is never deleted as long as a couple users write more then 10 messages, I think. It is a very small number, they just freeze the room so it does not show up as an active room. I dont think it is archived as well as the main chat though. | |
| Jan 2, 2013 at 22:52 | comment | added | Olin Lathrop | @Kortuk: Your edits are fine. I would welcome a somewhat more structured discussion capability here, more like "forums" that most everywhere else has. I understand SE is trying to build up a Q+A database, but some good information can be contained in discussions too. Chat just seems to informal, too random, I don't think it's archived and partcipates in searches, and you have to go actively looking for new content. It would be nice to have forums where activity shows up on the same page as Q+A activity. | |
| Jan 2, 2013 at 21:52 | comment | added | Kortuk | I have performed an edit to clarify, titles like above allow users to jump to what they are interested in. The titles are are quick suggestions. If someone does not want that info they can just skip to the section they are interested in, let me know what you think. Also, we do often goof off in chat, that is what it is there for, whatever we want to discuss but we often also have technical exchanges, more often then you might think, and if you want a business only chat it can be made. I would enjoy it if you dropped by some, but it is my attempt at helping grow a community. | |
| Jan 2, 2013 at 21:50 | history | edited | Kortuk | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added titles. |
| Jan 2, 2013 at 13:06 | comment | added | BullBoyShoes | Looking at your protocol spec I dont see much difference to the CANopen specs which have been around for 20 years, Im interested as to the motivation behind this./ | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 16:39 | comment | added | Toby Lawrence | @AndrewKohlsmith I'm hardly incensed by it. :) | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 16:08 | comment | added | akohlsmith | I see nothing obviously wrong with @OlinLathrop's answer, although Toby seems genuinely incensed by it. It did come across a little marketing-y but I appreciated that he made it clear that he's no stranger to CAN and then went on to say "This is how I am solving some of the issues you're asking about." If anything I appreciate that Olin wrote MORE than LESS, as I generally dislike "shotgun answers." +1 from me at any rate. | |
| Dec 31, 2012 at 21:48 | comment | added | Toby Lawrence | I mean, if you want to sit at home in front of a wooden table with a plain desk light and some pencil and paper and work out that specification... by all means, go for it. If you want fast feedback with a more free exchanges of ideas... chat is a good place to be. :) | |
| Dec 31, 2012 at 21:33 | comment | added | Olin Lathrop | @Toby: I was just trying to head off the usual knee jerk reaction I get, which is "why would you want to do that?". I thought giving some background on what motivated the answer I was going to give might be useful context. You may just want a answer, but others may be more interested in discussing the general issues. I thought you were also asking a bit about others' experience. As for chat, that's useless here. I have looked a few times, but only found content free and often childish babble. | |
| Dec 31, 2012 at 20:15 | comment | added | Toby Lawrence | I'm not trying to come off like a dick here, but the first two paragraphs just seem very extraneous to me. Talking about your experiences.. that's all fine and good, but it has little to do with my actual question. You explaining that you have been working on a lightweight protocol designed to run over CAN and how it could potentially solve one of my problems would be far more succinct, specific and applicable to my question. Also, if you're serious about getting feedback on EmCan, you should stop by the chat sometime. | |
| Dec 31, 2012 at 19:03 | comment | added | Olin Lathrop | @Toby: It's not advertising as there is nothing mentioned that I'm selling. The spec will be open and the PIC implementation code freely available. I am willing to work with a few select implementors, whether on PICs or not. Of course you won't be able to use my code, but independent implementation on another platform could be useful in verifying the spec is complete and possibly uncovering problems in its design. | |
| Dec 31, 2012 at 18:11 | comment | added | Toby Lawrence | Nice advertisement. ;) All jokes aside, the device family is already locked down (NXP LPC17xx and NXP LPC11Cxx) so I'm not able to use any of your code but I do like the idea behind node address assignment... as it transposes the solution from hardware to software entirely.. which has a faster iteration cycle should I screw something up. I'm not sure how I feel about your protocol... I don't think it's based, but there's also native CANopen drivers for my MCU family so it's a tough trade-off. | |
| Dec 31, 2012 at 17:23 | history | answered | Olin Lathrop | CC BY-SA 3.0 |