>
>I don't understand how the scheme would work in that case.  The suggestion by David VanHorn was that a packet is sent to a PIC.  If the packet is not destined for that PIC, it is sent onto the next one.  This implies (to me at least) that the PIC's are daisy chained, and the PC always talks to the first one in the link.

That's what I meant.

>If this implemented with a common bus, then all the PIC's would receive the
>packet at once, so there would surely be no need to keep sending it on?

Unfortunately, 232 isn't designed to drive more than one receiver.
You can usually get away with it, but it's not guaranteed.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body