Gavin Lambert wrote:
> Actually I'm not sure why fsm_slave shouldn't be made responsible
> for both of those things (config->sdo_requests and SDO dictionary
> scanning). Doing that would avoid the CoE concurrency issue
> altogether.
I didn't make such changes because they would be rather large s
On 1 July 2014, quoth Knud Baastrup:
> I have tested a bit on below scenario in my current setup and
> prepared this small attached patch that await the SDO dictionary
> fetching to be completed for a given slave (if SDO Info is
> supported by the slave) before the slave is set ready for
> exte
...@etherlab.org] On Behalf Of Jun Yuan
Sent: 1. juli 2014 11:12
To: Gavin Lambert
Cc: etherlab-dev@etherlab.org
Subject: Re: [etherlab-dev] Support for multiple mailbox protocols
I missed that part with slave->config->sdo_configs. You're right. The
ecrt_slave_config_sdo* functions i
I missed that part with slave->config->sdo_configs. You're right. The
ecrt_slave_config_sdo* functions is protected against concurrent CoE
mailbox conversation. Yet still, the etherlabmaster may have concurrent CoE
mailbox conversation with ecrt_master_sdo_download/upload functions on the
one side,
On 30 June 2014, quoth Jun Yuan:
> The slave's CoE FSM instance is not controlled by the master FSM, but
> by the slave FSM itself. The slave FSM is responsible for the CoE
> requests in ec_slave_t issued directly by the user via the function
> ecrt_master_sdo_download, ecrt_master_sdo_download_
On 30 June 2014, quoth Jun Yuan:
> 1) The master can send max. only one mailbox request in one cycle.
Per slave, yes.
> 2) Before a mailbox request is going to be sent, the master should
> check the SM0 register 0x800 whether the send mailbox is full or
> empty, and send the request only if it
Hi Gavin,
thanks for the reply. It's very helpful.
It sounds that,
1) The master can send max. only one mailbox request in one cycle.
2) Before a mailbox request is going to be sent, the master should check
the SM0 register 0x800 whether the send mailbox is full or empty, and send
the request onl
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gavin Lambert [mailto:gav...@compacsort.com]
> Sent: 30. juni 2014 02:11
> To: 'Jun Yuan'
> Cc: Knud Baastrup; etherlab-dev@etherlab.org
> Subject: RE: [etherlab-dev] Support for multiple mailbox protocols
>
> On 28 June 2
On 30 June 2014, quoth Knud Baastrup:
> I am still not able to identify a scenario where the EtherCAT master use
> concurrent CoE requests towards the same slave. I know that both master
> and slave FSM have CoE FSM instances, but their usage are controlled by
> the master FSM in dedicated states t
rg
Subject: RE: [etherlab-dev] Support for multiple mailbox protocols
On 28 June 2014, quoth Jun Yuan:
> Are you sure that some slaves will choke with multiple CoE requests?
> Does these slaves then support simultaneous mailbox requests in
> different protocol, i.e. CoE and EoE, or CoE
On 28 June 2014, quoth Jun Yuan:
> Are you sure that some slaves will choke with multiple CoE requests?
> Does these slaves then support simultaneous mailbox requests in
> different protocol, i.e. CoE and EoE, or CoE and SoE in parallel?
> Do we always need to wait until the slave have a response
Hi Gavin,
as you said, "If there really is concurrent CoE going on, it's not a good
idea to send two CoE requests in parallel to the same slave -- some slaves
can cope with that (and send both replies) but some may choke"
Yes, there is concurrent CoE going on. That's the problem I have with my
Co
Thanks Gavin, see my in-lined comments!
Regards,
Knud Baastrup
-Original Message-
From: Gavin Lambert [mailto:gav...@compacsort.com]
Sent: 26. juni 2014 04:19
To: Knud Baastrup
Cc: etherlab-dev@etherlab.org
Subject: RE: [etherlab-dev] Support for multiple mailbox protocols
On 26 June
On 26 June 2014, quoth Knud Baastrup:
>> Additionally it doesn't look like you have any protection against
>> concurrent CoE access (which TBH I'm not entirely sure whether this
>> occurs, but Frank's patch 27 suggests it does), and I'm definitely
>> not a fan of allocating/deallocating memory o
Hi Gavin,
Thanks for the feed-back, I have in-lined some comments below.
Mvh. Knud
From: Gavin Lambert [mailto:gav...@compacsort.com]
Sent: 25. juni 2014 02:02
To: Knud Baastrup
Cc: etherlab-dev@etherlab.org
Subject: RE: [etherlab-dev] Support for multiple mailbox protocols
Hi Knud,
I haven&#
up
Sent: Wednesday, 25 June 2014 01:13
To: etherlab-dev@etherlab.org
Subject: Re: [etherlab-dev] Support for multiple mailbox protocols
Hi !
I just discovered that the provided patch included a hardcoded mailbox size
that I have now replaced with a dynamic allocated buffer. I have attached a
new
16 matches
Mail list logo
