Advanced Search

สวัสดี PCW ผมกำลังใช้Mesa 7i96M กับ 7i76 และผมอยากถามคำถามเกี่ยวกับการตั้งค่าเฟิร์มแวร์ก่อนที่จะขอไฟล์บิตแบบกำหนดเองคำถามคือ:
เป็นไปได้หรือไม่ที่จะใช้ PktUART แทน SSerial ในการตั้งค่าเฟิร์มแวร์ 7i96M? ผมอยากเข้าใจว่า PktUART สามารถใช้งานแทน SSerial ได้หรือไม่ หรือว่า SSerial มีโครงสร้างที่ตายตัวและไม่สามารถใช้งานแทนกันได้หากเป็นไปได้ ผมขอไฟล์บิตแบบกำหนดเองที่มีการเปลี่ยนแปลงดังต่อไปนี้:

• แทนที่SSerial ด้วย PktUART
  • นำSTEP5 (ที่ไม่ได้ใช้งานในระบบของฉัน) มาใช้เป็นเอาต์พุต PWM
    • โปรดคงฟังก์ชันอื่นๆ ทั้งหมดไว้เหมือนกับเฟิร์มแวร์มาตรฐาน 7i96M + 7i76
      
      หากเป็นไปไม่ได้ โปรดให้คำแนะนำเกี่ยวกับทางเลือกอื่นๆ ที่เหมาะสม ขอบคุณมากสำหรับเวลาและการสนับสนุนของคุณ

 

okay, thanks, I understand... just said my observations ... did you check my gcode yet? 

Checking the datasheets:
The Pi5 and CM5 both use the BCM2712 CPU. The CM5 uses the Broadcom BCM54210PE ethernet phy ic. I'm having a bit of trouble finding concrete info on what the Pi5 has, but I see my Pi 5 datasheet in the photo of the Pi 5 it has a BCM54213PE ethernet phy ic soldered near its ethernet connector. According to a quick look at the datasheets, those two chips appear to be interchangable.

In other words Pi 5 = CM5 as far as network drivers is concerned.

I think you could run in a terminal:
lspci -k
to determine whether the correct drivers loaded. I don't have a Pi 5 to compare with, but maybe someone else could confirm whether it is correct.

On the other hand, maybe there is a connection problem between the I/O board and the CM5, is the CM5 seated correctly, and the connections clean? One thing I'd try is carefully disconnecting then re-seating the CM5 on the I/O board, it could make a difference.

Hello!
The idea with the Heidenhein board isn't bad. It's definitely a very solid solution. 

I have already asked another company about these small converters. If they are suitable I would like to use them because they are small. 

@hartwig, you can edit your comment to delete the long link

It is not a simple change, the look ahead is about velocity not position, it is not something we can easily expose via HAL, it does not exist, we do not have that point ahead of time, we need to calculate it, and you just had us look at performance optimization, this will double the calculations, for cosmetic reason, I don't think you'd want that either.

JohnnyCNC wrote:

I don't have a surface plate or height gauge (yet). I do have a lathe with a DRO. I made a ring that the tool holder fits into. I chuck the ring up the lathe, Turn the lathe tool post holder around so I have a flat surface that will go up against the ring. Zero out the DRO. Move the tool post away from the ring. Insert the mill tool in the ring then move the lathe tool so it touches the tip of the tool. The DRO now shows the tool length. I enter that value into the tool table.

Very inventive solution

No there is no error observations at parts because regulator in servo doing its job .. its just cosmetic issue of lcnc which I can see when I am comparing lcnc with fo example NC application from TC3...

It just my hint.. many of user are facing this ferror a its difficult to understand for them that this error is not the bug but the feature... 

I am just highlighting situation and when you are already in gentlemen.. how much difficult is to create pin position-command-bus or something else which will forever solve this observation please? 

Thank you. Your jobs are amazing ! 

Hello, I am testing LinuxCNC 2.9.7 (official Raspberry Pi 4/5 image, Debian Trixie, uspace) on a Raspberry Pi Compute Module 5 (CM5) with a Mesa 7i95 Ethernet card.
The same LinuxCNC version, Mesa card, cable, and network configuration work on another Raspberry Pi platform, but on CM5: • eth0 stays NO-CARRIER • ethtool eth0 shows Link detected: no • Forcing speed/duplex has no effect • RP1 PCIe device is detected in kernel logs Network: • eth0: 10.10.10.1/24 • Mesa: 10.10.10.10
Is CM5 fully supported by the current LinuxCNC Raspberry Pi 4/5 image, or is newer kernel / device-tree support required for RP1 Ethernet on CM5? Thank you.

I see this in master and looking at the code, I see why.
Thanks for details and investigation.
I'll try to push a bug fix soon.

Aqui os 3 modelos que testei funcionaram bem.
Mas com .bit chinês

Before I had TTS tool holders I used a touch plate that I had made. It was basically a spring-loaded brass button in a Delrin base. I used to put each OP in a separate G-Code file and touch-off with the touch-plate at each tool change. Now I have an M6 remap that automatically measures my variable length tools like drills and odd endmills that I don't have dedicated toolholders for. It uses that length in the tool table for the tools with dedicated holders.

I don't have a surface plate or height gauge (yet). I do have a lathe with a DRO. I made a ring that the tool holder fits into. I chuck the ring up the lathe, Turn the lathe tool post holder around so I have a flat surface that will go up against the ring. Zero out the DRO. Move the tool post away from the ring. Insert the mill tool in the ring then move the lathe tool so it touches the tip of the tool. The DRO now shows the tool length. I enter that value into the tool table.

We use CSP control with Ethercat, I can't really envision benefit of sending next next position, instead of just next position.

What do you actually observe on real finished parts? Any actual quality issues? Or is this a theoretical concern based on watching HAL ferror signals?

FWIW, I finally got back to working on this with the new 7i84 board and the ferrules I ordered.
I purchased two different ferrules but the one that seems to work best is a 0.14mm2  - 26-28g brown  Digikey PN 288-1656-ND, manu-PN 1163014

These will go in and start over the insulation slightly (maybe where it's been necked down a little during stripping?) but crimps down tightly.
I do think I might all a drop of CA to the plastic end of the ferrule once the wire is in just to move the flex point away from where the bare wire is crimped and up to the insulated part

Back to wiring....

 

Hi everyone, I'm 杨阳. I'm currently studying the lookahead optimization code in the motion planner, and we're also exploring some approaches to improve its computational efficiency. If everything goes well, I hope to contribute further optimizations in the future.