Hey Graeme, Thanks for the updated patch. I just tested and it now works fine with the 3 slave setup (EK1100, EL6910, EK1110). I did a quick tcpdump to verify, and it is as expected/patched:
mbg: -> 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 23 00 20 41 80 f9 02 00 00 00 00 ec: -> 0a 00 e9 03 00 03 00 20 41 80 f9 02 00 00 00 00 ec: <- 0a 00 e9 03 00 13 00 30 43 80 f9 02 ea 82 1e 00 mbg: <- 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 13 00 30 43 80 f9 02 ea 82 1e 00 mbg: -> 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 33 00 20 41 80 f9 01 00 00 00 00 ec: -> 0a 00 e9 03 00 03 00 20 41 80 f9 01 00 00 00 00 ec: <- 0a 00 e9 03 00 23 00 30 4b 80 f9 01 01 00 00 00 mbg: <- 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 23 00 30 4b 80 f9 01 01 00 00 00 mbg: -> 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 33 00 20 41 01 fe 00 00 00 00 00 ec: -> 0a 00 e9 03 00 03 00 20 41 01 fe 00 00 00 00 00 ec: <- fa 00 e9 03 00 33 00 30 41 01 fe 00 00 08 ..... mbg: <- 00 51 fa 00 e9 03 00 33 00 30 41 01 fe 00 00 08 ..... Regards, Mark On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 3:51 AM Graeme Foot <graeme.f...@touchcut.com> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > Thanks for checking out the EtherCAT comms side. I didn’t find the > documentation particularly clear in quite a few areas so not surprised > there’s an issue or two. > > > > The ethercat_mbg implementation passed through the CoE header info exactly as > the TwinSAFE Loader requested. For standard mailbox communications it looks > like the etherlab master always passes a value of 0 to the Cnt parameter, so > the slave will always respond. I have updated the patch so that it will pass > through 0 for the Cnt parameter for the mbg requests also (attached). Please > let me know if there is still an issue (I don’t have anything to test with at > the moment). > > > > > > Re the other items: > > - Yes. TwinCAT starts its slave addressing at 1000 (0x03e8), whereas the > etherlab master starts its slave position addressing at 0. I decided to > report slave addresses in the TwinCAT fashion (starting at 1000), plus it > helps distinguish the slaves mbg requests as per below. Note: the TwinSAFE > loader isn’t interested in the first slave, so it starts talking to the > second slave first (1001, 0x03e9). > > > > I don’t think the mailbox header address is used by the slave. It is the > datagram header that directs the CoE message to the slave. The previous > ethercat_mbg implementation passed the mailbox header unchanged, using any > reply with the mailbox header request 0x03e8 and above, and also with the > datagram slave address offset from the mailbox header address by 0x03e7 > (Note: the datagram slave address is the slave position + 1), to be an mbg > response. With the extra datagram slave address vs CoE mailbox header > address check you shouldn’t have any problems with the mbg server if you have > more than 1000 slaves. This remains the same, with the change that the Cnt > value in the header is now cleared. > > > > TwinCAT on the other hand looks like it is setting the Mailbox address to > 0xe000 so that the master knows that the request should be handled as an mbg > request. Depending on implementation It may then mean you can have ~57344 > slaves before TwinCAT has a problem with conflicting addresses. Note: the > gateway can only access up to 4080 slaves. > > > > > > Regards, > > Graeme. > > > > > > > > From: Mark Verrijt <mark.verr...@vectioneer.com> > Sent: Saturday, 3 April 2021 12:48 am > To: Graeme Foot <graeme.f...@touchcut.com> > Cc: etherlab-dev@etherlab.org > Subject: Re: [Etherlab-dev] Ethercat mailbox gateway and TwinSAFE loader > issues > > > > Before I forget again, thanks Graeme (and all others involved) for this mbg > implementation in the first place. > > It saves us from a lot of hassle when deploying our safety projects. Only > recently we discovered the twinsafe loader didn't work in all cases. > > > > I finally got around to also looking at the mailbox traffic on the ethercat > side. I think I have found the cause. > > For twincat the counter used on the ethercat side is separate from the one > received by the mbg. > > For etherlab the counter in the message to the mbg is also seemed to be used > on the ethercat side, is that correct, or is something else happening here? > Depending on the setup it can therefore become possible for two subsequent > requests to the same slave (with requests to others in between) to use the > same counter value. > See data at the bottom of the email. > > > > What is your take on this? > > > Some other things worth mentioning (for completeness/archive): > > - The addressing is done a bit differently: > > .Twincat, Datagram header slave address: 0x03e9, Mailbox header address: > 0xe000 > > .Etherlab, Datagram header slave address: 0x0002, Mailbox header address: > 0x03e9 > > - The counter in the mailbox reply of a slave is separate from the counter > value check in the (next) request. > > Though logical, I mention it here explicitly because this messed up my > thinking quite a bit when I hadn't realized this yet. > > > > Regards, > > Mark > > > > *** Twincat *** > mbg: -> 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 23 00 20 41 80 f9 02 00 00 00 00 > ec: -> 0a 00 00 e0 00 13 00 20 41 80 f9 02 00 00 00 00 > ec: <- 0a 00 00 e0 00 33 00 30 43 80 f9 02 ea 82 1e 00 > mbg: <- 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 33 00 30 43 80 f9 02 ea 82 1e 00 > > mbg: -> 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 33 00 20 41 80 f9 01 00 00 00 00 > ec: -> 0a 00 00 e0 00 23 00 20 41 80 f9 01 00 00 00 00 > ec: <- 0a 00 00 e0 00 43 00 30 4b 80 f9 01 01 00 00 00 > mbg: <- 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 43 00 30 4b 80 f9 01 01 00 00 00 > > .... other req/rep > > mbg: -> 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 33 00 20 41 01 fe 00 00 00 00 00 > ec: -> 0a 00 00 e0 00 33 00 20 41 01 fe 00 00 00 00 00 > ec: <- fa 00 00 e0 00 53 00 30 41 01 fe 00 00 08 ..... > mbg: <- 00 51 fa 00 e9 03 00 53 00 30 41 01 fe 00 00 08 ..... > > *** Etherlab *** > mbg: -> 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 23 00 20 41 80 f9 02 00 00 00 00 > ec: -> 0a 00 e9 03 00 23 00 20 41 80 f9 02 00 00 00 00 > ec: <- 0a 00 e9 03 00 13 00 30 43 80 f9 02 ea 82 1e 00 > mbg: <- 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 13 00 30 43 80 f9 02 ea 82 1e 00 > > mbg: -> 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 33 00 20 41 80 f9 01 00 00 00 00 > ec: -> 0a 00 e9 03 00 33 00 20 41 80 f9 01 00 00 00 00 <---. > ec: <- 0a 00 e9 03 00 23 00 30 4b 80 f9 01 01 00 00 00 | > mbg: <- 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 23 00 30 4b 80 f9 01 01 00 00 00 | > | > Problem occurs due to two subsequent requests | > .... other req/rep to the same slave with the same counter | > | > mbg: -> 10 50 0a 00 e9 03 00 33 00 20 41 01 fe 00 00 00 00 00 | > ec: -> 0a 00 e9 03 00 33 00 20 41 01 fe 00 00 00 00 00 <---' > ec: <- No Reply > mbg: <- Timeout -- Etherlab-dev mailing list Etherlab-dev@etherlab.org https://lists.etherlab.org/mailman/listinfo/etherlab-dev
