Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 23:20:30 -0400 From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> To: Steve Passe <smp@csn.net> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, jseger@freebsd.scds.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Activehome X10 Interface Message-ID: <199706240320.XAA22494@whizzo.TransSys.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:53:15 MDT." <199706232053.OAA07518@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com> References: <199706232053.OAA07518@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I just looked at this code again, and the CM11 protocol specification. I think that the whole RI issue is a bit of a red herring; it's useful in the instance where the attached computer is powered down, and needs to be poked to start up again to handle received X10 traffic. Based on the documentation (and consistent with the code) the RI signal is asserted when an X10 transmission begins to be received. Once the CM11 has received the multibyte sequence, it will begin to poll the computer once per second with a request (single byte of 0x5a) to have it's buffer read. I'm not sure if it makes sense to adapt the xtend program to talk to the CM11 interface, or teach the other daemon tricks. I'm probably going to do neither, and build a front-end with scotty to represent the state of all the x10 devices with a MIB. Applications would interact with it using SNMP. This separates the policy from the device, which seems to be a rather common theme for X10 software. (Given that most of the X10 computer interfaces have their own particular brain-damage, this is hardly surprising.) louie louie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706240320.XAA22494>