Hi,
not yet, I've worked a lot in order to complete a project and I didn't
spent time to this kind of experiment.
I'll do this as soon as possible.
On 20/11/2012 09:59, Florian Pose wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Thomas,
Am 11.10.2012 09:27, schrieb Florian Pos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Thomas,
Am 11.10.2012 09:27, schrieb Florian Pose:
> please provide the master and kernel versions you are using and a
> complete minimal example.
any news about this?
- --
Best regards,
Florian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Using G
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Am 10.10.2012 15:44, schrieb Thomas Paoloni:
> I did a very simple test, I removed from my softplc the two
> function calls
>
> ecrt_domain_queue(domain1); ecrt_master_send(master);
>
> without this, data on domain area are preserved.
please
On Wednesday 10 October 2012 16:19:28 Richard Hacker wrote:
> Is the slave using logical read/write? In this case the slave overwrites
> the data. The master does not "currupt" anything.
Sorry, I meant overlapping PDO's
What you could also try is to put exactly that one slave in a domain of its
Its not the watch dog timer on the EL2004 turning the output off if
its not written to every
100ms (the default)? Sorry if this is completely off the mark, I
haven't completely followed the thread, just
though it was worth a mention.
Craig Fullerton
On 11 October 2012 02:44, Thomas Paoloni
Is the slave using logical read/write? In this case the slave overwrites the
data. The master does not "currupt" anything.
On Wednesday 10 October 2012 15:44:45 Thomas Paoloni wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 09:57, Thomas Paoloni wrote:
> > On 10/10/2012 09:41, Jun Yuan wrote:
> >> We really need to find
On 10/10/2012 09:57, Thomas Paoloni wrote:
On 10/10/2012 09:41, Jun Yuan wrote:
We really need to find out the reason, instead of writing a workaround.
I completely agree with you.
From my first tests I had the impression I explained before, but my
fieldbus is actually composed of 35 slaves a
On 10/10/2012 09:41, Jun Yuan wrote:
We really need to find out the reason, instead of writing a workaround.
I completely agree with you.
From my first tests I had the impression I explained before, but my
fieldbus is actually composed of 35 slaves and so I'll check better for
overlaps or oth
sorry, I picked the wrong email address by sending the mail to <
etherlab-users-requ...@etherlab.org> last night.
First of all, I agree that when the fieldbus is a kind of black box to us,
we may need to threat it carefully by rewriting the buffer every cycle. But
AFAIK, the EtherLAB Master actual
On 09/10/2012 13:27, Florian Pose wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 08.10.2012 16:42, schrieb Thomas Bitsky, Jr.:
What you're proposing would be a mistake. The value coming back is
the value of that object in the field. You send out a value, the
slave reads it, then puts i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 08.10.2012 16:42, schrieb Thomas Bitsky, Jr.:
> What you're proposing would be a mistake. The value coming back is
> the value of that object in the field. You send out a value, the
> slave reads it, then puts in the value that is actually there. If
What you're proposing would be a mistake. The value coming back is the
value of that object in the field. You send out a value, the slave reads
it, then puts in the value that is actually there. If it just took your
value and never did anything with it, you'd be blind to what is going on
out in the
I don't agree completely with you.
You're right, but if I write a certain bit out to 1 I expect that nobody
changes it's state and so, the actual value on the fieldbus should
remain 1 up to the end of the program, even if I don't write 1 continuously.
I see this as a sort of bug, I'll write a wo
I think you're thinking of it wrong. The data isn't cleared, it's replaced
by the actual value on the field bus. So, if you don't write the value out
to update the field bus, then the packet gets returned with the value that
is out there.
Thomas C Bitsky Jr
Lead Developer and Application Engineer
Hi all,
even if I'm dealing with ethercat since more than one year, I'm in front
of a very basic question ...
As from I can see, the data in master->slave direction in the domain_pd
area are not preserved from an update to another.
I'mean that I need to write out data to domain_pd area at each
15 matches
Mail list logo
