E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums

E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums (http://www.rdmprotocol.org/forums/index.php)
-   RDM Interpretation Questions (http://www.rdmprotocol.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Get_Parameter_Description 10.4.2 (http://www.rdmprotocol.org/forums/showthread.php?t=64)

prwatE120 December 20th, 2006 07:20 AM

Get_Parameter_Description 10.4.2
In the response to this we require a declaration of the "type" of data described by the specified PID as enumerated by Table A-12.

But Table A-12 is clearly labelled as associated with SENSORS.

Why are we using Table A-12 if my specified PID (which I am trying to describe) has nothing to do with Sensors.

What do we think the required entry should be if my PID sets/gets data for an internal configuration location in my EEprom?

I have posted this firstly to the task group to avoid confusing the masses - once we have a task group view it may be better to make this thread public.

sblair December 26th, 2006 03:51 PM

I'm not sure why it points to A-12. I would say just set it to SENS_OTHER or use something from the Proprietary range.

sblair January 19th, 2007 07:15 PM

There was no logical reason the Task Group can determine that this field was in this PID. The best option is to set that field to SENS_OTHER as it is fairly meaningless in the context of PARAMETER_DESCRIPTION.

prwatE120 January 20th, 2007 05:56 AM

Just a note that this was discussed at the Jan 19th 2007 Task group meeting in Dallas and that Scott's response reflected the consensus of the group at that time.

Peter Willis

prwatE120 January 20th, 2007 06:48 AM

The use of this PID is likely to be rather limited, as it currently cannot properly describe a very simple PID.

For example : we have added to our responders the ability to control the state of a POWERON_SELFTEST feature -a flag held in non-volatile storage and requiring user selection.

The GET: PID has no need for any data and so has a PDL=0x00

It retrieves the current state of the flag.

The SET: PID has a one byte argument 0 or 1 to act as the state selection, so the PDL is 0x01, and the allowed data is 0 or 1.

This is similar to many standard PIDs already featured in the standard.

Unfortunately the fields associated with the current PARAMATER_DESCRIPTION PID do not allow for different GET/SET PDL declarations.

In my view we should withdraw this PID and replace it with one that allows declaration of

(a) whether it supports GETs and SETs as per Table A-16
(b) the GET:PDL and GET: Data Type as per Table A-15
(c) the SET:PDL and SET: Data Type as per Table A-15
(d) and optional MAX GET and MAX SET Data value (32bit) to be used ONLY if declared data type is Byte/Word or DWord as per Table A-15
(e) an optional text string description.

Peter Willis

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.