As a new user I've been following this thread with interest. My only questions
are:
1. What is the scope of a signal name. Is it machine wide or limited to the
Hal file it appears in.
2. If machine wide, are there existing signal names in existence that I have to
avoid re-declaring?
Mike
On Sat, 2012-05-05 at 23:06 -0600, jeshua wrote:
On May 5, 2012, at 8:14 PM, jeshua wrote:
'pcils -v' reveals:
08:00.1 Non-VGA unclassified device: Oxford Semiconductor Ltd OX16PCI954
(Quad 16950 UART) function 1 (parallel port) (rev 01)
Subsystem: Oxford Semiconductor Ltd
On May 6, 2012, at 1:38 AM, Kirk Wallace wrote:
On Sat, 2012-05-05 at 23:06 -0600, jeshua wrote:
On May 5, 2012, at 8:14 PM, jeshua wrote:
'pcils -v' reveals:
08:00.1 Non-VGA unclassified device: Oxford Semiconductor Ltd OX16PCI954
(Quad 16950 UART) function 1 (parallel port) (rev 01)
Is there a chance to block this email address, so that it cannot post
messages on the mailing list?
Thanks!
Viesturs
2012/5/6 rob c crob...@live.ca:
For a Windows Software Solution try http://whatisacnc.com/sprinter/
How does EMC control a 3D Printer? I love the software for Milling!!
On 6 May 2012, at 08:25, Mike Bennett mjb1...@gmail.com wrote:
1. What is the scope of a signal name. Is it machine wide or limited to the
Hal file it appears in?
They are system-wide and are the only practical way to share data between HAL
files.
2. If machine wide, are there existing
Gene - greetings
As an aside, as many nets are best written on one line, inventing the
signal name is tedious. It would suit me to allow a wildcard, * or
whatever, as signalname and HAL would invent a unique internal name for
its own purposes.
John Prentice
While that might be kewl, how
On Sun, 2012-05-06 at 02:06 -0600, Jeshua Lacock wrote:
... snip
I tried pretty much every possible combination of C040, C050 and C00 that I
could think of.
Here is as you suggest:
sudo ./showport C040 C050 e
~
Base @ 0xc040
Extended @ 0xc050
DPR: 144
DSR: 64
DCR: 149
EPPA: 4
jeshua wrote:
I am looking at the data sheet for that chip:
http://www.datasheetarchive.com/OX16PCI952-datasheet.html#
It states on page 52:
To use the Enhanced Parallel Port (‘EPP’) mode, the mode
field of the Extended Control Register (ECR[7:5]) must be
set to ‘100’ using the
gene heskett wrote:
Thanks to all who helped, I cut another thread this evening, wrong of
course but at least I now know why it was wrong. Hopefully the next one
will be right. ;-)
Progress comes in small steps, but as long as each step moves in the right
direction, that is good!
Jon
Thanks Andy
On 6 May 2012, at 13:23, Andy Pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 May 2012, at 08:25, Mike Bennett mjb1...@gmail.com wrote:
1. What is the scope of a signal name. Is it machine wide or limited to the
Hal file it appears in?
They are system-wide and are the only
Jeshua Lacock wrote:
Actually it looks like the UARTs show up as a separate device:
08:00.0 Serial controller: Oxford Semiconductor Ltd OX16PCI954 (Quad 16950
UART) function 0 (Disabled) (rev 01) (prog-if 06)
Subsystem: Oxford Semiconductor Ltd Device
Flags: medium devsel,
Jon,
Why would they do that? So it is stuck in SPP mode?
Is this an attempt to idiot proof the card so it works for most people
out of the box?
Dave
On 5/6/2012 1:50 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
Jeshua Lacock wrote:
Actually it looks like the UARTs show up as a separate device:
08:00.0
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:12:18 PM John Prentice did opine:
Gene - greetings
As an aside, as many nets are best written on one line, inventing the
signal name is tedious. It would suit me to allow a wildcard, * or
whatever, as signalname and HAL would invent a unique internal name
for
On 5/6/2012 2:31 PM, gene heskett wrote:
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:12:18 PM John Prentice did opine:
Gene - greetings
As an aside, as many nets are best written on one line, inventing the
signal name is tedious. It would suit me to allow a wildcard, * or
whatever, as signalname
... snip
Yup, this looks like the problem, the EEPROM has been set to disable the
ECR registers, so you can't set it to EPP. There must be a utility program
that can rewrite the EEPROM to change the default config. Did you
get a mini-CD with it? You might have a program on it to do this,
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:33:08 PM Jon Elson did opine:
gene heskett wrote:
Thanks to all who helped, I cut another thread this evening, wrong of
course but at least I now know why it was wrong. Hopefully the next
one will be right. ;-)
Progress comes in small steps, but as long as
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 03:01:18 PM Dave did opine:
On 5/6/2012 2:31 PM, gene heskett wrote:
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:12:18 PM John Prentice did opine:
Gene - greetings
As an aside, as many nets are best written on one line, inventing
the signal name is tedious. It would suit me to
On 5/6/2012 3:02 PM, gene heskett wrote:
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 03:01:18 PM Dave did opine:
On 5/6/2012 2:31 PM, gene heskett wrote:
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:12:18 PM John Prentice did opine:
Gene - greetings
As an aside, as many nets are best written on
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 06:38:05 PM Dave did opine:
On 5/6/2012 3:02 PM, gene heskett wrote:
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 03:01:18 PM Dave did opine:
On 5/6/2012 2:31 PM, gene heskett wrote:
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:12:18 PM John Prentice did opine:
Gene - greetings
As an aside, as
Dave wrote:
Jon,
Why would they do that? So it is stuck in SPP mode?
Is this an attempt to idiot proof the card so it works for most people
out of the box?
Yes, very likely. Perhaps Windows drivers reset this with some of the
PCI setup
registers. I suspect there is a setup utility,
Kirk Wallace wrote:
I believe the EEPROM programs the chip pin-out or rather tells the PCI
chip what product it's on, and probably is not meant to be changed after
the chip is soldered to a board. Also the datasheet seems to indicate
that the chip follows the Microsoft interface spec.:
jeshua wrote:
OK, in this badly trashed document (at least on my browser) :
http://www.soiseek.com/OXFORD/OX16PCI954-TQC60-A1/56.htm
It mentions there is a Windows utility to reprogram the options EEPROM
available from Oxford Semi. No link is provided.
Page 72 of that doc has some email
gene heskett wrote:
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:33:08 PM Jon Elson did opine:
What is the best practice to establish the X zero on a lathe? I am making
a test cut, measuring it and dividing that by half to enter in a Touch Off.
If you have a quick-change toolpost, you should be able
On Sun, 6 May 2012, Jon Elson wrote:
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 18:02:16 -0500
From: Jon Elson el...@pico-systems.com
Reply-To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)
emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Emc-users]
On May 6, 2012, at 5:02 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
OK, in this badly trashed document (at least on my browser) :
http://www.soiseek.com/OXFORD/OX16PCI954-TQC60-A1/56.htm
It mentions there is a Windows utility to reprogram the options EEPROM
available from Oxford Semi. No link is provided.
Page
I'm finally getting up my CHNC wired up a piece at a time and am
wondering which way to go on the Ubu. version?
I have played with 8.04 and it seems to be faster than 10.04, probably
because of bloat. The install is in a 2.6Gh machine running Pico Systems
hardware so I don't think the
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 09:15:18 PM Jon Elson did opine:
gene heskett wrote:
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 02:33:08 PM Jon Elson did opine:
What is the best practice to establish the X zero on a lathe? I am
making a test cut, measuring it and dividing that by half to enter in
a Touch
Jeshua Lacock wrote:
I have never written to an EEPROM before, so I think I would rather order
another card to spare the expense of small pci card.
You don't have to know what you are doing, if you can get the config
utility for
that card, you just set the options you want and hit go.
The
Ed wrote:
I'm finally getting up my CHNC wired up a piece at a time and am
wondering which way to go on the Ubu. version?
I have played with 8.04 and it seems to be faster than 10.04, probably
because of bloat. The install is in a 2.6Gh machine running Pico Systems
hardware so I don't
gene heskett wrote:
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 09:15:18 PM Jon Elson did opine:
you should be able to set up X and
Z offsets for each tool in the tool table.
That would require I get at least 3 or 4 more QC toolholders. But then I
am reminded that the QC post must be rotated in
On May 6, 2012, at 9:16 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
Jeshua Lacock wrote:
I have never written to an EEPROM before, so I think I would rather order
another card to spare the expense of small pci card.
You don't have to know what you are doing, if you can get the config
utility for
that card,
On May 6, 2012, at 9:55 PM, Jeshua Lacock wrote:
Can anyone recommend some cards that are known to work with your or Kirk
Wallace's utilities?
Siig definitely work, although I have only used their PCI cards, not PCI-e.
Older NetMos-containing cards mostly do NOT work, although
supposedly
32 matches
Mail list logo
