On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Peter <pg...@q40.de> wrote: > 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. > That's very impressive. It's a shame that the solution was not more widespread.
> 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. > Ok... Based on that comment it seems that for clarity's sake I have to state the following explicitly: I am *not* associated in any way with Dave's project. I had two motivations for posting my reply to Dave's message: 1) To point out a reason I personally chose the W5300 chip for a home project - this difference between the discussed chips was not stated in earlier emails so I thought it might add information to the discussion 2) To express my general curiosity about what a "driver" means in this case since this was not 100% clear to me. Also, I am NOT advocating the use of any specific chip for any purpose whatsoever. And following your cue, I'm also not making any promises or offering any implementations around any chipset. _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
