![]() |
|
|||||||
| RDM Interpretation Questions Discussion and questions relating to interpreting and understanding the E1.20 RDM Standard. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#21 |
|
Member
|
A PID SUPPORTED_SELFTESTS would in this case be in lieu of SELFTEST_COUNT so no real difference in overhead.
I make the assumption that any responder supporting many self tests will not see an extra byte of code space for each test as a big overhead, so here I buy into the cardinal approach. There may be a slight impact on the controller side, but in any case, less than the current arrangement demands. I make the assumption that we're all in favour of making support for SELFTEST_DESCRIPTION mandatory when PERFORM_SELFTEST is supported. |
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| ASN.1 description of RDM | sjackman | RDM General Implementation Discussion | 2 | September 19th, 2006 10:20 AM |