Advanced Search

Here are the outputs from mesaflash utility and the linuxcnc report of the error.

I'm trying after many years to bring a bridgeport v2xt back to life. I purchased the hardware to do so years ago and never got around to it until now.

I have managed to get linuxcnc to see the 7i92H and had previously flashed the 7i77 firmware on the 7i92. Right now I am having an issue with adding I/O to the file. Before adding the I/O in pncconf the file will launch linuxcnc properly. After adding it I get an error.
Here are my files that were created by pncconf.

The error I'm getting contains "hm2_7i92.0.7i77.0.0.output-00" saying it doesn't exist. when I remove all the outputs it moves to the same error with inputs.

Any help is greatly appreciated need to get this machine running.

First of all, I would like to thank you all for your comments. I hope many more will follow. Please allow me to reflect a bit on your comments and add some additional thoughts.

@NTULINUX: I am not very familiar with Gentoo, but I am certainly curios to see how well Gentoo performs compared to my daily driver LinuxMint 22 with KDE and my new Clear Linux system, which I installed out of curiosity and for evaluation purposes only. It has been a long time since I played around with Gentoo, and back then it was quite a struggle to get things up and running the way I wanted. But that probably applied to most distros back then. Things have changed a lot the past decades... As for Clear Linux, I have seen some recent benchmarks that gave me the impression that the CL team has really achieved substantially better performance compared to most other distros and I am very curious to see if that would also be the case with LinuxCNC running on CL. And yes, I know that perceived user experience and latency are very different things, so let's put it to the test.

@cornholio: I'm not sure what made you think my post was AI generated, but it is not. For now I will just take it as a compliment, as English is not my native language, so seemingly I am doing quite well On the other hand, your remark about "the term intelligence being used very loosely" feels a bit insulting. I hope that is just my poor interpretation and not your intention.
As for the security aspect of CL, I don't care too much about that and I agree with you that the best approach is to keep machine controllers disconnected from general networks. I am primarily interested in the potential suitability of CL from a real time performance / latency perspective. And I don't know if it will be suitable or any better than others, but I am curious....

To all: I am aware that there is a tendency on this forum to be negative about Intel and AMD, and from a CNC latency perspective that is quite understandable and I share many of the frustrations that have been expressed. Newer hardware comes with many more bells and whistles that none of us CNC guys really need. My good old J1900 Mini-ITX boards (GA-J1900N-D3V to be precise) still give me excellent low latency results, and definitely much better than the most recent platforms, but lets face it.... older hardware will eventually phase out and we will have to work with what is available. For most of us that means that using newer Intel and AMD platforms will become inevitable. I have a plethora of computers that I use for my daily work, including a M2 MacBook Pro, some ARM based SBCs and obviously Intel and AMD devices as well, and none of those platforms is perfect. So let's stop bashing certain processor brands, stop pretending that "everything used to be better when I was young" and instead make today's reality work for us as good as possible. Let's also keep in mind that what we are doing with LinuxCNC is trying make general purpose CPUs operate as MCUs, which they are not. So let us not put the blame on Intel and AMD for that. And if one day the newest processors cannot give us the required real time performance that we need, perhaps we may have to move completely away from using general purpose CPUs to do timing critical tasks, which is basically what Mesa cards and similar products are doing for us too. Personally, my ideal system would be an SBC with both A-Cortex application processor cores and M-Cortex MCU cores, so we can move all timing critical tasks to the M cores (which are built for that purpose), and have the general stuff run on the A cores. Then we would create a synergy between processors and software as intended for industrial applications, but that would require a partial redesign of LinuxCNC. Perhaps one day....

Back to Clear Linux and my motivation to bring it up on this forum: When I first learned about Clear Linux I was just as skeptical as most, for obvious reasons. And perhaps Debian, Gentoo or other distros (like CachyOS) may be able to perform just as good. I don't know, but I am curious, so let's find out. My thoughts are that perhaps with the inside knowledge of the Intel team we may be able to turn modern processor platforms into better performing systems for us. So in order to challenge that, and hopefully see some great results, I submitted a package-request. In the worst case situation the CL team will not be able to create a package at all or only create a system that does not perform any better than what we already have. But at least then we know..... Thus far I must say the Clear Linux team seems dedicated to make it work. As a side note: they seem to use the open source Meson Build System, which itself is already interesting and perhaps worth to consider for future LinuxCNC developments, as it can resolve dependencies for different platforms in a much easier way than building software the traditional way. It would provide us with a true cross platform build system and make us less depending on Debian as the preferred distro.
Anyway.... Fingers crossed and let's see....... And if LinuxCNC on Clear Linux does stand out, then we may be able to benefit from that even for those who do not want to use CL. After all, Clear Linux is open source, so anybody who wants to use their performance improvements and implement it in their own preferred distro is totally free to do so. Whatever the outcome may be, personally I think it may be interesting.

seems like it could be fixed then if its a known issue. sure would save some folks the headache. i wonder if the issue is known if there has been little to no work to resolve it. Is there anyone in the linuxcnc community that contributes to kernel work in this area?

EDIT Nov. 3 2024. THERE IS A WIRING ERROR IN THE PICTURE BELOW. THE OE LINE NEEDS TO BE CONNECTED TO 3.3V OR AN OUTPUT. WILL CORRECT THE DRAWING AND UPLOAD AGAIN ONCE TESTED.
This would be the schematics for Raspbery PI and SPI. In all examples, the Tang is powered by the USB C cable.  

I tried to get the 3 wire start stop to work but could not figure out why it doesn't work. I used the quick start guide to wire up the start and stop buttons and set the P02.00 parameter to 3.

 

JT

It seems I used the wrong table. Each table creates a pin in HAL that needs to be set for a standard display. I made the connection in HAL, and now it works well

 

I tried to activate the spi and the usart in armbian-config/Toggle hardware configuration, but the peripherals don't appear there.

Ja das geht. Das hier hilft vielleicht weiter:
forum.linuxcnc.org/20-g-code/33642-custo...ython?start=0#102546

Also der Werkzeugwechsel grundsätzlich ist mir bekannt und wird schon ausgiebig genutzt. Mir geht es aber eher um den Fall dass ich außerhalb eines Fräsprogrammes auch Werkzeuge wechsel. Bisher habe ich mir für jedes Werkzeug einen Button programmiert, aber das finde ich nicht so ideal.
Am liebsten wäre mir ein Button der den Werkzeugwechsel initiiert und eine Abfrage der Werkzeugnummer öffnet. 
Beispiel: "Bitte Werkzeugnummer eingeben:"

Gibt es so etwas oder die Möglichkeit das zu erstellen?

@rodw ... I use mb2hal from year .... most time tcp-ip .... now the problem is that  I have only 1 cable avaiable ... So I think I can configure same rj45 port with 2 different ip adress ... other side I use a managed switch for to obtain 2 different cable ....but I ask here before to loose too mutch time to try for discover ethecat lcnc or mb2hal not permit these ......

fuck i dropped my octopus and broke the sdcard on my way to testing bench.

but our first catch of the day -
Nucleo f446 doesnt want to reconnect to RPi5. after the first time i connect to linuxcnc, the nucleo doesnt reconnect unless i reset the board. otherwise i get bad spi data, will investigate further.
doesnt happen on rpi4
my little STM32F411 board works great every time for some reason


edit, tested with my second favorite octopus, and everything seems fine, i will chalk this one up to jankly nucleo

i like how fast this rpi5 is

Unexpected realtime delay on task 0 with period 25597

Is this a parallel port setup? (25597 sounds like a parallel port base thread time)

EDIT I see this is a 7I96S configuration but the 25597 thread period makes no sense
in that setup.

 

gsoft2 is great for config, I'm just using FOR and REV commands. I tried to work out the pulse train on the gs20, but it wants 24v pulses and the mesa hardware I have requires um more electronics skill then I have. I considered using the 15 preset frequency via the DI3-6, but got the analog out card working so I think just a basic PID will do all I need.

I would call it a Preempt-rt kernel bug since the r8169 driver is a FOSS kernel driver
that fails in RT environments. Unfortunately it looks like very little if any RT work has been
done on network drivers (looking at the RT patches)

It looks like the main driver related RT patches are for video drivers...