| ??? 08/30/11 04:33 Read: times |
#183532 - One Byte !!! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I fully agree. If one commits the 9th bit as an indicator of when a command packet is beginning it is almost foolish to add the 9th bit elsewhere in the packet. Because as Per has said a receiving entity could sync on that other byte as the start of a packet.
The only reason I could see setting the 9th bit on both ends of the packet would be if there were some some possible situation that the order of the bytes could somehow get reversed. This is however highly improbable when a serial transmission scheme is being used. Michael Karas |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Multiprocessor Communication 8052 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| where is bottleneck? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That's the usual approach | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| one comment | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 9th Bit - How ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| how to use bit 9 for data bytes? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| one form of 9th bit use | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| One byte | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| One Byte !!! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re: 1 byte - MDB | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Strong work | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Just as there is a timeout | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| my reason | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Protocol should preferably support dry-counting for EOP pos | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Methods in brief | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| At least 1 packet less (sic) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Neither! | 01/01/70 00:00 |