Subject: Re: [etherlab-users] Error reassigning removed PDO
Hi Gavin,
I have a gift for you. The attached patch should make your scenario with
different PDOs of interest in different apps working. The problem was that the
master always makes the last PDO assign in SyncManager as the default
Hi Gavin,
I have a gift for you. The attached patch should make your scenario with
different PDOs of interest in different apps working. The problem was that
the master always makes the last PDO assign in SyncManager as the default
PDO assign, and it don't remember any older PDO assignment. I made
t; many slaves provide a dedicated “MBoxState” FMMU that can be used to watch
> for new mailbox messages as part of the regular process datagram, avoiding
> the need to individually poll the slaves.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jun Yuan [mailto:j.y...@rtleaders.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 29
20:40
To: Gavin Lambert
Cc: etherlab-users@etherlab.org
Subject: Re: [etherlab-users] Error reassigning removed PDO
Hello Gavin,
for that specific part of the CoE transfer problem you mentioned, I may have
observed the same problem, and I did some analysis on it. This is actually a
big prob
Hello Gavin,
for that specific part of the CoE transfer problem you mentioned, I may
have observed the same problem, and I did some analysis on it. This is
actually a big problem, makes the master quite unreliable for me. I have a
temporary fix for it. But I don't know who should be responsible fo
Last month, I wrote:
> TLDR: when reassigning PDOs, why doesn't the master read mappings from
> the slave via CoE?
[...]
> Shouldn't this scenario work? The PDO is always specified in the SII,
> even if not presently in PDO Assign, so the master ought to know that it
> exists.
> And failing that,
> Ideally what I really want is to (a) identify devices by their serial,
> without having to assign some other id to them, and (b) cope gracefully
> with
> any particular slave being offline (either due to being powered off in
> star
> topology, or manually bypassed in chain topology), mostly by ig
On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 18:43, quoth Florian Pose:
> ecrt_domain_state() is the one and only way to determine, if the data
> are valid. If you want to monitor different slave groups, you have to
> place them in several domains.
Something that I've observed with a particular slave (perhaps it's
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 01:39:28PM +1200, Gavin Lambert wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 April 2014 20:21, quoth Richard Hacker:
> > For the very simple reason, that the application can start without any
> > slaves being attached to the network!
>
> I thought it might be something like that. However this
On Tuesday, 22 April 2014 20:21, quoth Richard Hacker:
> For the very simple reason, that the application can start without any
> slaves being attached to the network!
I thought it might be something like that. However this seems of very
limited usefulness to me as there doesn't seem to be any wa
Am 04/22/2014 09:33 AM, schrieb Gavin Lambert:
Hi all,
TLDR: when reassigning PDOs, why doesn't the master read mappings from the
slave via CoE?
For the very simple reason, that the application can start without any
slaves being attached to the network!
In order to be able to do that, the ma
Hi all,
TLDR: when reassigning PDOs, why doesn't the master read mappings from the
slave via CoE?
I have a (custom) slave that provides a number of different PDOs. I have a
couple of different master applications which are interested in different
subsets of these PDOs. As an example, let's say
12 matches
Mail list logo
