I am wondering if the NI-VISA 3.6 implementation of viGpibControlREN() on USB::INSTR resources is correct or not. As my test operation, viGpibControlREN( vi, VI_GPIB_REN_ASSERT_LLO) call on USB:INSTR (USBTMC-USB488 class device) generates the following two class requests on the USB trafic:
A1 A0 01 00 00 00 01 00
(REN_CONTROL request, commanding Assert REN)
A1 A2 00 00 00 00 01 00
(LOCAL_LOCKOUT request)
The VISA 3.0 spec Table 6.5.1 says VI_GPIB_REN_ASSERT_LLO with the description, "Send LLO to any devices that are addressed to listen." The operation symbol name VI_GPIB_REN_ASSERT_LLO includes "ASSERT" therefore seems like it should assert the virtual REN line too. However, the action description says "Send LLO..." and does not say about asserting REN line.
In this case, which of the followings is correct?
1) NI-VISA 3.6 implementation (VI_GPIB_REN_ASSERT_LLO asserts REN and sends LLO) is right, and Table 6.5.1 description is insufficient.
2) Table 6.5.1 description (Send LLO to any devices that are addressed to listen) is right, and NI-VISA 3.6 implementation is not right.
Thanks and best regards,
Makoto Kondo, KIKUSUI