E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums  

Go Back   E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums > RDM Developer Forums > RDM Interpretation Questions

RDM Interpretation Questions Discussion and questions relating to interpreting and understanding the E1.20 RDM Standard.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old November 6th, 2008   #1
p_richart
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 6
Default Is there a minimum required PID list for sub-devices?

Hello all!

Does the list of minimum required PIDs apply to sub-devices?

Since only the root responds to discovery commands which are part of the minimum required parameters, I believe there is a strong argument for the answer to this question to be NO.

The remaining PIDs in the list are: DEVICE_INFO, SOFTWARE_VERSION_LABEL, IDENTIFY_DEVICE, and SUPPORTED_PARAMETERS (since our sub-device supports another publicly defined PID)

In our color changer we have a personalities that use a channel for fan control. We have implemented this by giving those personalities a fan sub-device.

The DEVICE_INFO and SUPPORTED_PARAMETERS commands are useful for our fan sub-device, SOFTWARE_VERSION_LABEL is benign, but IDENTIFY_DEVICE is not applicable at all.

Any thoughts?

Thanks - Patrick
p_richart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2008   #2
sblair
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 415
Send a message via AIM to sblair Send a message via MSN to sblair
Default

Patrick,

The only message that is required to be supported for Sub-Devices is the SUPPORTED_PARAMETERS message. This is detailed in Section 9.3.

There is no requirement for any other messages to be supported and as you point out some would not make sense. Of course there are Sub-Devices where IDENTIFY_DEVICE and SOFTWARE_VERSION_LABEL would be useful but it completely depends on the application.
__________________
Scott M. Blair
RDM Protocol Forums Admin
sblair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2008   #3
p_richart
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 6
Default

Hi Scott,

I have the E1.20 ANSI CP/2003-1003r4 standard approved on March 31, 2006 and a copy of the RDM errata, neither of which has a section 9.3. Has an updated version been released?
p_richart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2008   #4
prwatE120
Task Group Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 180
Default

I believe Scott meant 9.2.3

Peter Willis
prwatE120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2008   #5
sblair
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 415
Send a message via AIM to sblair Send a message via MSN to sblair
Default

Yes, I meant Section 9.2.3.
__________________
Scott M. Blair
RDM Protocol Forums Admin
sblair is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Multi-devices or sub-devices Fokko RDM Interpretation Questions 4 December 1st, 2006 11:10 AM
Any RDM Responder Devices out there yet? sblair RDM Marketplace Discussion 8 September 20th, 2006 06:03 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.