home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer
- Path: sparky!uunet!wizzy!andyr
- From: andyr@wizzy.com (Andy Rabagliati)
- Subject: Re: Link Splitting
- Message-ID: <Bx88In.Lqn@wizzy.com>
- Organization: W. Z. I.
- References: <27661@castle.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:59:11 GMT
- Lines: 33
-
- In article <27661@castle.ed.ac.uk> bxhv02@castle.ed.ac.uk (Tim Wilkinson) writes:
- >
- >I'm looking for some info on the probability of splitting a single transputer
- >link to allow it to be connected to more than one destination transputer.
-
- > Tim Wilkinson email tjw@cs.hull.ac.uk
-
- A transputer uses both wires of a link, even for unidirectional
- communication. Each byte that goes out, must have an acknowledge come
- back before another byte will be sent.
-
- So, don't even *think* of bi-directional communication.
-
- The Correct Way would be to have the two 'return' wires go into a
- circuit that produced a 200ns pulse (10Mhz) or 100ns pulse (20Mhz) when
- one ack had been received from each return wire.
-
- The Dirty Way would be connect one return wire, ignore the other return
- wire, and hope for the best.
-
- What could go wrong ?
-
- Well, only that the second receiving transputer could drop, garble, and
- generally behave in a very un-transputery fashion. But, if it isn't
- doing anything else, and (especially) if you are nice to it and have
- comms go straight into internal RAM, or you help it along by delaying
- the other ack by a tick or two, you might get away with it.
-
- Don't tell the Transputer police, though.
-
- print ! "Just another occam hacker", Cheers, Andy.
- --
- andyr@wizzy.com Andy Rabagliati, RR1 Box 33, Wyalusing, PA 18853 (717)746-7780
-