change_request:cr80
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| change_request:cr80 [2014/05/13 13:04] – bob | change_request:cr80 [2014/05/13 13:07] (current) – bob | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| * The new definition would be compatible with existing 8 bit implementations. For 7 or 9 bit it would be compatible with the most reasonable implementation under the current definition I could make up. In effect most likely no changes on vendor side are required except to support new formats. | * The new definition would be compatible with existing 8 bit implementations. For 7 or 9 bit it would be compatible with the most reasonable implementation under the current definition I could make up. In effect most likely no changes on vendor side are required except to support new formats. | ||
| As an alternative always use packed mode but define this. This would avoid the unpacked option with possibly much wasted memory (for 9-bit words). It would also safe the only available reserved bit in the CSDW. | As an alternative always use packed mode but define this. This would avoid the unpacked option with possibly much wasted memory (for 9-bit words). It would also safe the only available reserved bit in the CSDW. | ||
| - | |||
| - | ~~DISCUSSION~~ | ||
| ==== 4 PCM data type ==== | ==== 4 PCM data type ==== | ||
| Line 83: | Line 81: | ||
| 6. In case word length >16 (or >32) bit are used in 16 (32) bit aligned unpacked mode, the placement of the bits is undefined. | 6. In case word length >16 (or >32) bit are used in 16 (32) bit aligned unpacked mode, the placement of the bits is undefined. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ~~DISCUSSION~~ | ||
change_request/cr80.1400004294.txt.gz · Last modified: 2014/05/13 13:04 by bob