On 2014-07-08 11:21, Gavin Lambert wrote:
Though one of my original questions remains:
If it's not supposed to work, shouldn't the master just select a
smaller size if it doesn't support large sizes? While it's supposed
to respect the slave's preference, ultimately the master is in control
of m
On 2014-07-08 13:55, Gavin Lambert wrote:
On 8 July 2014, quoth Dave Page:
A brief look at the SSC suggests the master is responsible for
specifying the mailbox size each transfer via the Length parameter in
the mailbox header. The FMMU mailbox protocol requires the last mailbox
byte to b
On 8 July 2014, quoth Dave Page:
> A brief look at the SSC suggests the master is responsible for
> specifying the mailbox size each transfer via the Length parameter in
> the mailbox header. The FMMU mailbox protocol requires the last mailbox
> byte to be accessed to hand over the mailbox buf
On 7 July 2014, quoth Dave Page:
> On 2014-05-20 22:00, etherlab-users-requ...@etherlab.org wrote:
> > what is the limit for the maximum supported mailbox size? Either in
> > EtherCAT in general or in EtherLab in particular?
>
> ETG1000.5 V1i02 page 43 indicates that the mailbox can be from
On 2014-05-20 22:00, etherlab-users-requ...@etherlab.org wrote:
what is the limit for the maximum supported mailbox size? Either in
EtherCAT in general or in EtherLab in particular?
ETG1000.5 V1i02 page 43 indicates that the mailbox can be from 38
to 1486 bytes.
Best regards -
Hi all,
This might be one of those "obvious in hindsight" things, but: what is the
limit for the maximum supported mailbox size? Either in EtherCAT in general
or in EtherLab in particular?
What prompted this is that I had a slave experimentally set to a 2048 byte
mailbox size in BOOT mode; perfo
