Talk:RapidIO

message: I rewrote this article so that folks could quickly learn about RapidIO.  Everything in the article related to the history of RapidIO and the RapidIO specification is based on the cited RapidIO book and/or the specification. I'm quite willing to add specific citations to every sentence if that's what is necessary to demonstrate verifiability and neutrality.
As for "may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject", seriously?  Only those ignorant of a subject can write Wikipedia articles? :)  I welcome others contributions to this article and suggestions for improvements/additions...
Cheers,
Barry Wood
Chair, RapidIO Technical Working Group
--Barrywood568 (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  In line citations 

message: I'd like to remove the reference to IEEE 1355 from the RapidIO page. Comments?
I would not view IEEE 1355 as a competing technology, as IEEE 1355 seems to be optimized for lower speed links and devices.  There are a large number of other low speed control technologies developed for a variety of industries, including CANBus, RS232 and other UART standards, LIN, FlexRay, MOST, EtherCAT and so on, which I also would not view as competing technologies.
If anyything, IEEE 1355/SpaceWire is a complimentary technology to RapidIO.  Having studied an implementation, and made presentations on the subject, it is straightforward to bridge between SpaceWire and RapidIO.
I think a stronger claim for being a competing technology in space may be SpaceFibre (http://www.star-dundee.com/knowledge-base/spacewire-and-spacefibre), as the space community has recognized a need for higher bandwidth communications.  The SpaceFibre standard is in development at this time.  I would encourage the SpaceFibre developers to add a SpaceFibre page to Wikipedia.
Cheers,
Barry
Barrywood568 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I wrote the now-removed edit comparing IEEE-1355.  I agree that the original standard's speeds are no longer competitive.  However, speed is not the main advantage of RapidIO. (OC-176 and 100Gbe are faster, of course.)  1355 competes with RapidIO with simpler, potentially-faster, lower-power designs for hardware routing, congestion-control and link recovery. These are all independent of the phy layer, just as RapidIO's methods are.  If SpaceFibre competes in any RapidIO application, then one endorses 1355 as competition.  SpaceFibre is a faster phy for SpaceWire, and therefore a faster phy for IEEE-1355.  I hope you will consider restoring the competitive comparison.  Ray Van De Walker 21:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competing Technologies - Proposed Change 

message: This article needs to be revised to
- provide an overview of the RapidIO specification
- identify RapidIO's strengths and weaknesses compared to other interconnects
- provide some marketing information for RapidIO's current market wins and direction  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrywood568 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite for 3.0 

message: This article needs to be expanded on SRIO vs Par RIO. It also needs to be checked for accuracy, as I don't trust it. 
:This input has been reviewed and checked by the RapidIO Trade Association, as of Jan 2008. Thomaslcox (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification 

message: Should the SRIO page have a section discussing or listing available SRIO interface or bridge/switch components, cores, etc?  Is that appropriate here?
--jwilkinson 20:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention SRIO Cores and/or SRIO interfaces? 

message: The RapidIO Trade Association has ceased operations. Is RapidIO no longer being used in new products? Have companies migrated to something else? MP64 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty much all either PCIe or 10GbE+ today. --Zac67 (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of RapidIO