Subject: Re: Draft of changes to protocols.... From: Marco Verzocchi Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 17:42:12 -0500 To: Hal Evans CC: Sabine Lammers , Hal Evans Hi Hal I'm sorry if this reply comes a little bit late...... > 3.a) General EM, Jet, Tau syntax > i) Since we're asking COOR to make checks on the validity of the parameters, should we also include a check that "maxeta" is consistent with what is coded in the firmware? Yes, we should ask COOR to do that (though I haven't added this to the document... damn....). > ii) The proposal that you make for the new "lowthres" parameter is a good one. It could perhaps be made more straightforward by using it as an optional parameter: lowthres="O". This would mean: > - TCC would contain default values for the parameter (3 and 5 GeV?) > - COOR would have to check that "lowthres = something" is only specified once per object (jet,em) > Do you think that this scheme would make it simpler to program COOR, or is it just an unecessary complication? Actually, what I am thinking is that COOR contains default values for the parameters (3 and 5 GeV) and that these can be overwritten via the triggerlist. COOR will then check that there is only one value of lowthres for the EM (CSWEM, CSWEI) triggers and one value of lowthres for the jet (CSWJT, CSWTA, all acoplanarity terms) triggers. > 3.e) ICR flags > i) I believe that the firmware ended up with 3 of these flags, as you have indicated. But we need to double-check the latest version of the code to make sure. Sabine: could you check this (or point me to where the current code lives)? Actually, it's only 2 flags, one for the jet triggers and one for the global sums (missing Et, global Et). > ii) Is the motivation for including these ICR enable flags in COOR to be able to track them more easily in the early stages of testing? I would imagine that we would make the final choice of whether to use the ICR or not for each class rather quickly and then stick with that choice for the rest of D0. If that is the case, it might be simpler to just leave the setting of these parameters up to TCC? Yes, setting things inside the TCC configuration files is an option, if Scott says that he's not doing the relevant changes in COOR..... Not only for this specific parameter...... > New item) reference set for L2 masks > I'm assuming that this will be set in TCC (or is it hard-coded in the firmware?). Is there any reason/possibility to have it known to COOR? Actually Sabine and I think that we should use the lowthres parameter for this (that is what I had always understood, that the 0-th jet/EM reference set is used for sending the masks to L2). That was part of the reason for introducing a way of setting the 0-th threshold (in addition to the fact that the 0-th threshold can be used for other stuff).... Cheers Marco