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 July 28th, 2013   #1
nomis52
Task Group Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Franciscio
Posts: 57
Default Another BLOCK_ADDRESS question

I'm busy adding responder tests for the E1.37-1 PIDs. I'm having trouble deciding what I should expect for GET DMX_BLOCK_ADDRESS in the following situation:

i) the DMX_BLOCK_ADDRESS pid is declared as supported
ii) DEVICE_INFO has no sub devices declared.

Clearly the sub-device footprint must be 0, but what should the base DMX address be? I would have expected 0xffff but it's not called out in the standard.


Yes, it's a weird corner case, but that's what the tests are for...

Simon
nomis52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2013   #2
ericthegeek
Task Group Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 358
Default

"ERROR: DMX_BLOCK_ADDRESS included in SUPPORTED_PARAMETERS but responder has no sub-devices"

To me it's similar to the "Sub-Device Status Reporting Threshold" PID that only makes sense when the responder has sub-devices.
ericthegeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2013   #3
nomis52
Task Group Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Franciscio
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthegeek View Post
"ERROR: DMX_BLOCK_ADDRESS included in SUPPORTED_PARAMETERS but responder has no sub-devices"

To me it's similar to the "Sub-Device Status Reporting Threshold" PID that only makes sense when the responder has sub-devices.

Well at most it can be an advisory message, since there is nothing in the standard that enforces it (although it makes complete sense).
nomis52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2013   #4
este_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 24
Default

This question relates to the BLOCK_ADDRESS issue raised by Hamish before.

This is my point of view:
BLOCK_ADDRESS only makes sense when there are Sub-Devices present. There is, however, no need to suppress the BLOCK_ADDRESS PID when Sub-Devices have gone (e.g. the "empty" Dimmer Rack referred to earlier). You may assume to receive a valid address in the DMX address range. You may also be able to set (write) a Block Adress without Sub-Devices installed; but slot allocation may only take place as soon as the Sub-Devices (with their respective slot count) are added or enabled.
este_ 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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:17 PM.


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