Reading AN52478 local address seems to be logical address of the specific node.
Source address is the address from which a message was sent to master.
Yes, you're right...but I knew about it. I'm just still wondering if they should be the same. It seems to be clear that the source address you send the data from should be the local address of the node that sent the data. So, for what reasons did they gave both addresses? What about the second questions? Should I send data to nodes from address (local) 0x00 to 0xFF and wait for the answer in order to check if they exist? It would take a lot of time. Is there a simplest way? Best regards...Robert
When you look at your windows OS, you will see that it works exactly that way: There is a request and within a given time-limit all network devices have to answer. Scanning all possible addresses and waiting for an answer takes some time but when you save the results and check only at power-up or at a user request (Users usually know when the net has changed) with a button or whatever you design. After a power-up just checking for the already known devices whether they are still there will speed up the3 initialization phase. To have informations survive a power-off store them into eeprom or program into flash.
Lastly, when comfort is required, you may use times when your master is idle to scan for new devices connected. That will take some time until those get recognized but that way you can detect network changes.
Isn't really no other way to do this? I assume that bit "Promiscuous_MASK" in the PLC_Mode Register (0x05)should be cleared to do this? This means that the Slave Drops all the RX Messages if Destination Address does not match its Local Address and will not respond the Master? So, this way I should wait for the Status_TX_NO_ACK or Status_TX_NO_RESP bits being set? It would last about 256*0.5 seconds (for No ACK) or 256*1.5 seconds (for No RESPONSE). Best regards...Robert