I think a better way to describe it that it’s CAN all the way up until the PHY. It’s still CAN protocol, you still need CAN modules, and really, nothing looks different at all to them.
You just lose out on the differential pair... but even that isn’t required when you look at fault tolerance CAN in single wire mode, or single wire CAN PHY transceiver options, as to the original point about termination, I can’t remember if Single Wire CAN is terminated in a loop or pulled up or down, but I promise it’s not 120ohm termination like differential CAN is.
Imo, safer to say that CAN is a protocol that can take many physical forms, and one of them is direct A to B modules with no termination.
Yes. You could do all-point-to-point CAN by or-ing all of the CAN-TX logic-level outputs, perhaps in an inverted tree, and then fanning out the global OR result to all CAN-TX logic-level inputs. Or, at short distances, just use wired-or at logic levels.
Comments
I think a better way to describe it that it’s CAN all the way up until the PHY. It’s still CAN protocol, you still need CAN modules, and really, nothing looks different at all to them.
You just lose out on the differential pair... but even that isn’t required when you look at fault tolerance CAN in single wire mode, or single wire CAN PHY transceiver options, as to the original point about termination, I can’t remember if Single Wire CAN is terminated in a loop or pulled up or down, but I promise it’s not 120ohm termination like differential CAN is.
Imo, safer to say that CAN is a protocol that can take many physical forms, and one of them is direct A to B modules with no termination.
Yes. You could do all-point-to-point CAN by or-ing all of the CAN-TX logic-level outputs, perhaps in an inverted tree, and then fanning out the global OR result to all CAN-TX logic-level inputs. Or, at short distances, just use wired-or at logic levels.