| ??? 08/30/11 12:12 Read: times |
#183537 - my reason Responding to: ???'s previous message |
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.
first I DO prefer length to EOP byte. second, if you want an EOP byte and do not set bit 9 there is no guarantee that a data byte could not be interpreted as EOP. Erik |
| 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 |