Yep, Actually I misspoke anyway, the PICnc never got an encoder module and the PWM stuff was "being worked on" so it's strictly a Stepgen/gpio project where it stalled.
On Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 9:22:44 PM UTC-5, John Dammeyer wrote: > > Hi Justin, > > Clearly we're on different pages. > > Thanks for your input. > > John > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] <javascript:> [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *justin White > *Sent:* March-03-20 5:35 PM > *To:* Machinekit > *Subject:* Re: [Machinekit] Re: PICnc with Machine Kit. > > > > I thought I was quite clear about this. > > Not at all, probably because you are misunderstanding the purpose of the > hardware you are mentioning in this post. > > > > This PICnc version requires Ethernet. LinuxCNC through a MESA Ethernet > 7i92H or MACH3-4 through an Ethernet Smooth Stepper control hardware. I am > going to guess that the MESA driver for the 7i92H also exists for > MachineKit. > > You want to run "mesa" ethernet from the 7i92H on the PICnc? Doesn't sound > easy and I doubt there is anything specific about the 7i92 in the hm2_eth > driver other than the fact that the board types are probably added to the > driver as they are released. MK is well behind LCNC in Mesa drivers so no > idea if it works....you should probably test it. Mesa cards don't run at > all on windows with the hostmot2 firmware that the MK/LCNC projects > interface with, and nobody around here can use a "smooth stepper" because > of the architectural differences between Linux Preempt kernels and the > Windows way of doing things. Windows devices tend to buffer things in > hardware to avoid RT requirements, which is why USB hardware is a thing in > Windows and not Linux. The "Linux way" is to run in a RT capable kernel and > minimize the "load" by having the hardware do the heavy lifting, but it is > still pegged in real-time. > > > > So you're hardware is not going to just be compatible with both, there is > very little that is as it stands. This is probably not the place to discuss > your Mach3/4 Windows needs (it's making me cringe just thinking about it). > Mesa does however have a "SoftDMC" firmware that is meant for WIndows > applications. An FPGA is far more versatile than a micro so there may be > something you can do with that, but SoftDMC will not run under LinuxCNC and > I seriously doubt anyone here knows much about it. > > > > The MESA board I have has the stepping-PWM engines implemented in an > FPGA. > > They all do, it's part of hostmot2 firmware, as are the encoder, Smart > serial and a few other firmware modules. > > > > What I´d like, but what may not be possible, is to replace the MESA 7i92H > with the updated PICnc. > > > > They functionally do the same exact thing. The PICnc is doing the stepgen, > encoder, PWM stuff as firmware modules in the micro as well. The difference > is ethernet, support, and an FPGA vs SPI, a dead project, and a micro > > > > If indeed the stepping engine is now within the PIC as well as the spindle > quadrature etc..... > > It is > > > > and the board is in effect the Break Out Board for the machine then there > is absolutely no reason you can´t have a single input serve as a > local-remote switch. In remote it behaves like, say a MESA 7i92H and the > buttons and display appear to behave like a pendent on LinuxCNC. In local > it´s a DRO & PowerFeed machine controller with a bunch of useful buttons to > simplify manual operation. > > That's not going to happen like you want it to, unless you are capable of > writing complex firmware. Your best bet is to abandon the PICnc thing for > what you want to do and call Mesa. Hostmot2 is "host-based-motion-control" > it only runs with a host i.e. LinuxCNC. SoftDMC is something completely > different and like I said, it's never really discussed in the Linux world. > The Mesa cards generally have 2 EPROMs and one can contain Hostmot2 > firmware and the other SoftDMC. SoftDMC may possibly be able to run by > itself and take care of your "local" thing....I don't know. > > > > Now maybe this won't be possible without also having an FPGA duplicate > what is done with say the 792H. > > Maybe this won't be possible at all with MachineKit. > > The PICnc already does functionally what the 7i92 does, just alot less of > it and over spi. > > > > The PICnc sounded interesting as I've never heard of it before. the board > isn't very interesting and the micro is too small, but the fact that the > original designer made firmware and drivers for it makes it something > viable for resurrection, with SPI IMO. > > > > Honestly your intended use doesn't sound very interesting at all because > it requires way too much non-existent configuration and what you are > actually trying to do is SUPER EASY just using an Rpi and a 7C80, 7C81, the > original picnc...whatever. A DE10-Nano running MKSOCFPGA would do it all > day. > > > > I'm all in for a Rpi based SPI Resurrection of the original PICnc. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > website: http://www.machinekit.io blog: http://blog.machinekit.io github: > https://github.com/machinekit > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Machinekit" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/machinekit/8da44c79-f44c-4aa1-ba94-b8185fe1bdf8%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/machinekit/8da44c79-f44c-4aa1-ba94-b8185fe1bdf8%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- website: http://www.machinekit.io blog: http://blog.machinekit.io github: https://github.com/machinekit --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Machinekit" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/machinekit/fa1ca289-f15b-422a-b875-cb7ead005dbe%40googlegroups.com.
