What is your concrete concern about dropping tdma-v1 in 0.9.x - even if tdma-v2 will be stable then?
I was thinking about the possibility of implementing TDMA directly in hardware for drives. But this makes no sense, if it has race conditions or bugs. So I agree to remove TDMA-V1 as soon as TDMA-V2 is stable.
Especially for such a scenario, you should not consider V1, but instead a (hopefully) stable revision. Although V1 does "only" contain problems in its implementation (the protocol should not be racy, but we never analysed this in every detail), it comes with a lot of overhead in connection with RTcfg, which is required to start the old networks synchronously.
What level of hardware-integration do you have in mind? Firmware or real hardware (FPGA, ASIC)? Putting the core features, maybe even without udp/ip, an RTcfg client, and a TDMA slave in some "dumb" device sounds attractive and should be feasible without extraordinary effort. Students are always asking for "hardware" topics for their thesis - this would be a real "hard" one... ;)
Mmh - all jokes aside, there is an Ethernet core available at opencores.org, and I have some friends working in this domain. I think a simple RTnet I/O chip, e.g. as FPGA code, is worth at least a short discussion about feasibility and effort. Well, that would fit: RTnet as opencore :) [just fantasising]
Jan
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click _______________________________________________ RTnet-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rtnet-users
