RE: Multiple serial ports for Pocket PC?

From: Carl Nilsson <
>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:51:15 +1000

--=======AVGMAIL-40874F46604B=======
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_169311692==.ALT"; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2188BB6

--=====================_169311692==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2188BB6

Martin:
I can see the symmetry in your diagram and it looks as if that architecture 
would pay dividends if one were connecting a larger number of devices, but 
I confess I don't quite understand the connection or data flow 
lines.   Could you tell me how the Pocket PC talks to, say, device 4.  I 
guess I don't know the symbolism of "/" and "\".   Re band width, I don't 
think I have a problem.  One device normally runs at 38,400, the other 
three at 9600.  However, the faster device only sends ,say, 50 bytes when 
polled at a relatively slow rate, say 25 frames per second.    There would 
be plenty of bandwidth to connect to the Pocket PC at say 115.2k 
baud.  Even if the faster device sent continuously, I think we would be OK, 
but I'm not sure what the overheads are in putting the data together.
Carl

At 11:07 AM 4/22/04, you wrote:

> >    [pocket pc] ---> PIC ---------> device1
> >                      \--> PIC ----> device2
> >                            \--> PIC ---> device3
> >                                  \---> PIC ---> device4
>
>I can do it in three :P
>
>                             /-----> device1
>                       /--> PIC ---> device2
>     [pocket pc] ---> PIC
>                       \--> PIC ---> device3
>                             \-----> device4
>
>definitely sounds like it would be a neat solution to implement though
>(the low cost high knowledge PIC (or other IC) splitting) - but I remember
>they were different rates - is there enough bandwidth on a single serial
>port to handle them all after being merged? At least one was in the 38600
>(or whatever the 30ish data rate is :))
>
>-Martin Norland
>
>  -----
>This email has been sent as a single line of query, and in no way
>indicates the senders interest in or acceptance of any promotions or
>"opt-in"'s unless otherwise EXPRESSLY noted.
>
>
>--
>Subscription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of
>"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to 
>Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org
>Please, *PLEASE* don't subscribe through a forward/expander/false domain

Carl Nilsson
137 Gordons Hill Road
Lindisfarne
Tasmania 7015
Australia 
--=====================_169311692==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2188BB6

<html>
<body>
<font size=3>Martin:<br>
I can see the symmetry in your diagram and it looks as if that
architecture would pay dividends if one were connecting a larger number
of devices, but I confess I don't quite understand the connection or data
flow lines.   Could you tell me how the Pocket PC talks to,
say, device 4.  I guess I don't know the symbolism of "/"
and "\".   Re band width, I don't think I have a
problem.  One device normally runs at 38,400, the other three at
9600.  However, the faster device only sends ,say, 50 bytes when
polled at a relatively slow rate, say 25 frames per
second.    There would be plenty of bandwidth to connect
to the Pocket PC at say 115.2k baud.  Even if the faster device sent
continuously, I think we would be OK, but I'm not sure what the overheads
are in putting the data together.<br>
Carl<br><br>
At 11:07 AM 4/22/04, you wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">>    [pocket
pc] ---> PIC ---------> device1<br>
>                     
\--> PIC ----> device2<br>
>                           
\--> PIC ---> device3<br>
>                                 
\---> PIC ---> device4<br><br>
I can do it in three :P<br><br>
                           
/-----> device1<br>
                     
/--> PIC ---> device2<br>
    [pocket pc] ---> PIC<br>
                     
\--> PIC ---> device3<br>
                           
\-----> device4<br><br>
definitely sounds like it would be a neat solution to implement
though<br>
(the low cost high knowledge PIC (or other IC) splitting) - but I
remember<br>
they were different rates - is there enough bandwidth on a single
serial<br>
port to handle them all after being merged? At least one was in the
38600<br>
(or whatever the 30ish data rate is :))<br><br>
-Martin Norland<br><br>
 -----<br>
This email has been sent as a single line of query, and in no way<br>
indicates the senders interest in or acceptance of any promotions 
or<br>
"opt-in"'s unless otherwise EXPRESSLY noted.<br><br>
<br>
--<br>
Subscription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject
of<br>
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to
<br>
Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable):
<a href="http://wearables.blu.org/" eudora="autourl">http://wearables.blu.org</a><br>
Please, *PLEASE* don't subscribe through a forward/expander/false
domain</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Carl Nilsson<br>
137 Gordons Hill Road<br>
Lindisfarne<br>
Tasmania 7015<br>
Australia</font></body>
</html>

--=====================_169311692==.ALT--
--=======AVGMAIL-40874F46604B=======--

--
Subscription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to 
Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org
Please, *PLEASE* don't subscribe through a forward/expander/false domain
+Previous Message in Thread | Next Message in Thread
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail