Had a Customer send me a large design with all the I/O mapped out, and it is something different than what I normally do, not to say that it is not correct. So, in that I'm almost exclusively CLX nowadays, I'm a bit rusty. As an example, the first rack is hanging off of slot 1 SN module with a 1747-ASB. It is an 8 slot rack. Slot 1 is an 1A16, Slot 2 is an OW16. They have denoted to use 2 slot addressing (which doesn't seem logical for 16pt cards) and they have indicated that the IA16 module is I:1.0 and the OW16 is O:1.0. I've always used single slot addressing such that IA would be I:1.0 and OW would be O:1.1. If it makes a difference the rest of the ASB is 10 Powerflex 70's in 1/4 rack configuration (starting at Rack 0 Group 4).
So, my question, is A) is this even possible and B) what's the advantage?
EDIT: Doing some further reading I'm really getting confused on this. I understand that 2-slot addressing uses two slots into one 16-bit word of the Input and Output Image table. So, maybe alternating Input and Output modules fills up a full word of each Image, saving a word. However, page 3-3 of the ASB module says that 2-slot puts slot 1 in the low order byte and slot 2 in high order byte of each image word. So that doesn't seem to support it working. I would get only 8 of the 16 points in each image (the lower 8 in the Input and upper 8 in the output). Thoughts?
So, my question, is A) is this even possible and B) what's the advantage?
EDIT: Doing some further reading I'm really getting confused on this. I understand that 2-slot addressing uses two slots into one 16-bit word of the Input and Output Image table. So, maybe alternating Input and Output modules fills up a full word of each Image, saving a word. However, page 3-3 of the ASB module says that 2-slot puts slot 1 in the low order byte and slot 2 in high order byte of each image word. So that doesn't seem to support it working. I would get only 8 of the 16 points in each image (the lower 8 in the Input and upper 8 in the output). Thoughts?
Last edited: