[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAP7ucLEN3-_9agX_miLu4n6Vcnbd+jBouMXmEg0x196Q1OZmg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:56:53 +0100
From: Aleksander Morgado <aleksander@...ksander.es>
To: Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
Vostrikov Andrey <andrey.vostrikov@...entembedded.com>,
Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] net: arinc429: Add ARINC-429 stack
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Aleksander Morgado
<aleksander@...ksander.es> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de> wrote:
>>> , or the duplex TX/RX setup for channels
>>> (channels are either RX or TX, not both), or the local
>>> echoing/loopback (which wouldn't make much sense for TX-only
>>> channels).
>>
>> Aren't the RX-only/TX-only channels rather a special case ?
>
> They're actually the only case AFAIK. You've got systems generating
> streams of ARINC429 words (e.g. the IRS, the FMC...) and systems that
> may consume the streams from multiple independent channels (e.g. the
> IFE). I try to think of each logical bus as a single transmitter
> broadcasting to multiple receivers.
I've re-checked the spec and it does say that there may be systems
that act as source (TX) and sink (RX), e.g. DME, VOR or ILS. But in
those cases, they will actually have separate TX and RX physical
ports.
--
Aleksander
https://aleksander.es
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists