Petri Pellinen wrote: > Nice thing about the W5300 is that it has a TCP/IP stack implemented on the > chip which makes the driver *much* simpler to implement.
I had a working native TCP/IP stack plus applications a decade ago, so in my case, the easier way is trying to reuse that. With the W5300 on-chip implementation, you depend on one specific manufacturer. If the TCP/IP stack runs on the QL side, one is more flexible to use different hardware. In my case, the NE2000 or Realtek on the Q40 and Q60, but the CP2200 on the Q68. Even TCP/IP over SER instead of ethernet is possible. However, with a slow CPU, your approach has a performance advantage. > One interesting question regarding this whole conversation is: what is > meant by a "driver" here? > Does driver in this context mean a SuperBasic device interface? I.e. > something along the lines of "open #3,tcp_www.bbc.co.uk_80" > Or does it mean a POSIX compliant socket library? > Or something else? In my case, it means a socket library, since existing internet applications were written in C, not S*BASIC. An extension which interfaces to S*BASIC is doable, just had low priority for me. Should I run out of time, I could also imagine "something else". As always, I can not promise when I can finish something. So if you have already implemented a lot of things around the W5300 and plan to finish soon, don't let my info regarding the CP2200 hinder you. Apart from compatibility to the Q68, the CP2200 may be a nice chip for QL use in general. By the way, does the W5300 include a unique ethernet address? IEEE registration can become an expensive issue if you need to do it yourself. Peter _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
