does this piece of code look ok?

[NavMicroSystems]

Richardco,

there is no need to start two different threads regarding the same thing.

see my reply HERE

and please see THIS

We are willing to help you help yourself, but we will certainly not provide you with a ready to run piece of code for your particular application.

[Richardco]

Im sorry for starting two threads but i began the first one in the wrong place and i saw a comment from someone regarding posting in the correct place so i changed it to here, Next the suggestion that you provide me with the completed piece of code was not a serios one as i would have thought the tone of the following statement in the post would have suggested, getting a ready built piece of code is not what i am after at all as this would teach me nothing.

Now in the post that i started in the wrong place there is a picture, this picture shows that i do not wish to use more than one chip.

so i assumed that although related to your method using more than 1 chip that there would be a new set of complexities involved in using 1 chip so i started a new thread. Again if this was not the correct thing to do i am sorry.

i would now like to know where this question has been answered
so that i can read this information and maybe get some use out of the replies

quote:
If i was sending data to a device (nmea) what would be the maximum interval between transmissions before the nmea device detects an error and displays the error or is this not defined in the standard?

i do see similarities between the above question and the one below that has been posted, However it does not answer my question,

quote:
As there is no defined timing between the different talkers

all that aside please forgive me if i have upset anyone.

Now here is my code so far, and although not completed and there are no timeouts yet , being new to this i want to iron out mistakes before the code gets to complicated for me, running before i can walk as it were. I do not mind if i miss some sentances from a pin while i read another unless the recieving device minds the break in information for that particular device, im not sure how long a device can go without update from a particular talker before it objects, which i asked about it in the question above.

If you see anything you dont think is right or you know of a more efficient way of achieving the same thing could you please let me know thanks.

the code:-

' Routine to read imea sentance from a pin and send it
' then do the same from another pin and send it.

testbyte VAR BYTE ' Define byte variable
pinin1 VAR PORTC.1 ' Define serial pinin1 as PORTC.1
pinin2 VAR PORTC.2 ' Define serial pinin2 as PORTC.2
pinout VAR PORTC.7 ' Define serial pinout as PORTC.7

' For these examples, assume that the following string
' is being received continuously at 4800 baud on PORTC.7:

start1:
Serin2 pinin1,188,[testbyte] ' read portc.1
if testbyte = "$" then begin1
goto start1

begin1:
Serout2 pinout,188,[testbyte]
goto loop1

loop1:
Serin2 pinin1,188,[testbyte]
if testbyte = "$" then start2
Serout2 pinout,188,[testbyte]
goto loop1

start2:
Serin2 pinin2,188,[testbyte] ' read portc.2
if testbyte = "$" then begin2 '
goto start2

begin2:
Serout2 pinout,188,[testbyte]
goto loop2

loop2:
Serin2 pinin2,188,[testbyte]
if testbyte = "$"then start1
Serout2 pinout,188,[testbyte]
goto loop2

[air1kdf]

Your code hurts my head and is very hard for me to follow the logic because it jumps in and out so much, so this is the same code rewritten. Is this what you were intending?

start1:
Do
Serin2 pinin1, 188, [testbyte] ' read portc.1
If testbyte = "$" Then
Serout2 pinout, 188, [testbyte]
Do
Serin2 pinin1, 188, [testbyte]
If testbyte = "$" Then
Do
Serin2 pinin2, 188, [testbyte] ' read portc.2
If testbyte = "$" Then
Serout2 pinout, 188, [testbyte]
Do
Serin2 pinin2, 188, [testbyte]
If testbyte = "$" Then start1
Serout2 pinout, 188, [testbyte]
Loop
End If
Loop
Serout2 pinout, 188, [testbyte]
Loop
End If
Loop

[air1kdf]

Mine would look even better if the indentation could be displayed. With a little luck there will be an attachment here.

[Melanie]

You are aware that if you have multiple Serial inputs and the data is randomly arriving from all directions on all pins, whilst you are attending to one, then you will be losing data from the others. I just thought I'd burst your bubble before you get too involved in your project and discover it doesn't work as you expected.

[NavMicroSystems]

Hi Melanie,

this what I was actually trying to say here

This is yet another example of that it's hard to keep track with two different threads regarding the very same issue in two different forum categories.

[Richardco]

Thankyou air1kdf,
that does look a lot easier to understand, i didnt know you could use 'DO' and am now going to read about it in the manual, Its funny because when you look at the code you have written yourself it looks very clear but when someone such as yourself looks at it and puts a new slant on things it seems obvios, But still i have a good excuse " Im still at primary grade where all this is concerned, i do hope that you realise how thankfull people like me are to have people like you to ask.

can i just ask this question about your code: this is just a snippet,

Do
Serin2 pinin1, 188, [testbyte] ' read portc.1
If testbyte = "$" Then
Serout2 pinout, 188, [testbyte]
Do
Serin2 pinin1, 188, [testbyte]
If testbyte = "$" Then


the data is read from pin 1
the data is checked to see if it conformes
if the data conforms the program progresses

if the data does not conform then what happens??

it should keep checking the pin till the data conforms but i cant see this with your piece of code.
i have commented my code now so you can see what i wanted to achieve more easily, and here is a part to read from one pin and move on to the next pin if data is validated and if not to continue checking till it is, i am not sure if i have correctly understood the timeouts (,500,start2,) but ignore them if they are wrong please.


start1:
LOW PORTB.0 ' Reset data led to low
Serin2 pinin1,188,500,start2,[testbyte] ' Read portc.1
if testbyte = "$" then begin1 ' Test Charactor
goto start1 ' Loop till correct

begin1:
LOW PORTB.6 ' Reset data led to low
HIGH PORTB.1 ' Show data found at pin
Serout2 pinout,188,[testbyte] ' Send data out
high PORTB.0 ' Show data is sent out
goto loop1 ' Enter main loop 1

loop1:
Serin2 pinin1,188,500,start2,[testbyte] ' Read portc.1
if testbyte = "$" then start2 ' Test Charactor
Serout2 pinout,188,[testbyte] ' Send data out '
goto loop1 ' Loop till correct

Thankyou for your time once more.



Hi Melanie, ok thankyou for your observation, i am aware of the data that will be missed as im only reading one pin at a time, but i figured that in the time it takes to read the other pins, the data from the other instruments would not of changed that much anyhow, and for instance im chugging along in my little pleasure fishing boat, how far would i have moved in the time it takes to read a pin for the second time?, and the other instruments that will be attached are much the same, there will be a gps, a weather instrument , a sounder and velocity readings. So im HOPING that the missing data will be of no consequence, and untill i try it i will not know. But thankyou anyhow. By the way "I just thought I'd burst your bubble" Sorry that burst the day i realised i would have to work for a living lol

Ok now here is the question i do not know the answer to if i am mistaken about the missing data.

I can see that the idea of having a pic to recieve data from each talker and a master pic to combine the data and send it out seems logical, However if all the 4 talkers are transmitting a continuous stream of data to thair respective pics at 4800baud, how will the master ever hope to transmit at 4800baud all the data it collects, i cant see how it will do it for long before it gets overloaded. If you can see what i mean? Again if my thinking is not correct please enlighten me because i know very little and i want to learn.


And could someone please delete the other thread i started in the wrong place by mistake (and have said sorry for) as it may confuse some people.