In message 498643ed.7060...@psas.pdx.edu you wrote:
...has lots of nice features like data identified packets
instead of node addresses, etc.
It seemed to me like this particular feature was a pain when
we tried this before? I thought we ended up kludging a node
addressing scheme that borrowed
In message 20090202020857.stbzev6v68cc4...@webmail.pdx.edu you wrote:
An application layer that floods the bus (but doesn't
invoke transceiver safeguards) will cause enough error
frames that the CAN controller will go bus-off and stop
transmitting.
So there are limits on the amount of bus
Here we go again...
if(OS != Linux)
CAN = Easy;
In one respect, I agree with Sarah's statement in that the only active
node in an FC failure is the recovery node. Nothing else really matters.
That said, if you *must* have some sort of non-usb back channel
communication, CAN is the way to
This is my understanding CAN vs USB,
USB wins for bulk and high speed data transfer.
USB wins for compatibility w/ standard hard/soft ware
USB as a control bus
Minuses
Complex driver developed for a different application suite
Driver is often tweaked
Millisecond latencies
Hard
