On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Stephen B Webb wrote:

> > I'm not sure what you mean by "low-level". Using the trick Scott Newell mentions
> > (which is quite clever I might add), you can't get any lower. The IrDA Libray on
>
> I think this is what I am after.  What I mean by low level is that the
> code on the PALM and the code on the PIC would look exactly the same as if
> I were communicating using RS-232 over copper.  (i.e. no protocol packets
> stuffed on top that I will have to interpret..)
>
> > protocols. But even if you manage to tackle the tricky software you still have
> > to deal with the hardware. For example, the IrDA specification says that the
> > pulse widths for SIR (Serial Infrared) can be as narrow as 1.4uS or 7
>
> Well, I was planning on handling that problem by using a latch.  The pulse
> would set the latch, and then the pic would read the bit (and then be
> responsible for resetting the latch).  Any good reason why that wouldn't
> work?

Other than possible baud rate mismatches, no. However, that's an issue in direct
connects too. Another solution would be to create a pulse stretcher.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu