>
> I’m not sure how the former would help you, since you’re still constrained
> by the wire delays of the large data block.
>
>
I could, in the slower thread, upload the SDO in smaller parts (e.g. 64
bytes each) and use linear addressing for that.
>
> And the second just sounds like “I want non
[mailto:jeroen.vandenkey...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 December 2013 22:14
To: Gavin Lambert
Cc: etherlab-dev@etherlab.org
Subject: Re: [etherlab-dev] Large PDOs
Gavin,
Thanks for your reply. Currently this slave does not support SDOs since it
is a 'resource constrained' FPGA ba
Gavin,
Thanks for your reply. Currently this slave does not support SDOs since it
is a 'resource constrained' FPGA based design.
Both fast and small, and slow and large PDOs are, unfortunately, on the
same slave.
I would have liked to stay away from using SDOs in the control process. So
current
How often do you need to access the large value? If it's at a reasonably
slow rate (and if you have the freedom to change the slave, or at least
unmap the PDO, which it sounds like you do from the below) then you might
want to consider accessing it as an SDO instead. If it's an array or record
ty
