Advanced Search

I have just posted the latency of my system in the case of checking and searching spikes source... 

Oooo it amazing to find that checking a scope is a source of spiking itself... thank you for briliant observation!

Yes I just finished testing, and our S-Curve acc tp seems to be computationally better, and spiking less the servo thread compared to the original trapez acc tp, as far as I see, thanks to our work you are getting a better and more computationally efficient TP with planner_type = 1 

Now I'm a bit confused about what spikes you want me to fix, the pictures you sent are of the latency-histogram, which I think you cannot even run when you are running linuxcnc, interpreting gcodes, and actually run our code the new s-curve acc tp, planner_type = 1

I think you might have some misunderstanding of where our S-Curve lives within the LinuxCNC architecture, we only changed the TP which stands for the Trajectory Planner. The Trajectory Planner is not calculating anything when you run latency-histogram, whatever spikes you see in latency-histogram have no connection with the Trajectory Planner, does that clear things up? Or is there something I'm missing? Am I misinterpreting you? Or am I missing something else?

Edit:
On our system I see way more spikes when moving windows around, opening glxgears, or even simply having halscope in view rolling the servo-thread, when halscope is minimized I have way less spikes to 20k compared to when I run either g-code you supplied. There is a catch I can only see that I was having less spikes AFTER I restore halscope in view, and then the spikes start again, making me conclude that the act of checking the spikes with halscope introduces more spikes than anything we are doing with the S-curve or trapez TPs, but I repeat in my testing our S-curve is more computationally efficient than normal trapez TP

​​​​​Hello PCW,I am using a Mesa 7i96M with a 7i76, and I would like to ask a question regarding firmware configuration before requesting any custom bitfile.Question:
Is it possible for PktUART to be used instead of SSerial in a 7i96M firmware configuration?
I would like to understand whether PktUART can be implemented in place of SSerial, or if SSerial is architecturally fixed and not interchangeable.If this is feasible, I would like to request a custom bitfile with the following changes:

• Replace SSerial with PktUART
• Repurpose STEP5 (unused in my system) as a PWM output
• Keep all other functions the same as the standard 7i96M + 7i76 firmware

If this is not feasible, I would appreciate any guidance on recommended alternatives.Thank you very much for your time and for the excellent Mesa hardware.
 

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. It should report the same modules for the network as it does on your Pi 5.

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. 
www.hs-imagingsolutions.com/hardware/signalkonverter

@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?