EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

1994  1995  1996  <19971998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  Index 1994  1995  1996  <19971998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Oh no! It's another GPIB/NI-1014_hardware/software feature!
From: [email protected] (Bill Brown)
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 97 09:52:32 PDT
We have this really cranky TWT amplifier that we're trying to monitor via
GPIB.  I won't go into all the details, but it has got to have one of the
three most unfriendly message formats imaginable.

One of its' features is that it doesn't assert "end-of-message" at the end
of each status message, which gets sent as the result of a "READ" operation.
Neither does it terminate the message with a <CR>, and it sends data in a
binary format, so even if it did one couldn't be sure that it's really
the end-of-message character.

The good news is that the message is always _exactly_ 17 bytes long.  The
bad news is that the 17th byte is somehow being eaten by the combination
of the GPIB Interface and DMA chips on the NI-1014.  Well, actually, I
think it's being placed in the buffer as a null, but I have no proof of
this.

We've been attempting to deal with the problem by making the length of the
devices' read buffer exactly the same length as the message.  As it turns
out, the device support was broken such that the last character would
always get written over by the null which it appends to the end of the
message, which is passed up from the GPIB driver via the devGpibCommon
stuff.  We fixed that.

That didn't fix the problem.  To make a long story short, I can see the
17th byte get transfered on the GPIB bus by watching it with a GPIB
analizer, but it doesn't get put into the buffer by the driver.

Has anyone tried (successfully, one would hope!) to do this?  Clearly,
depending on the byte-count to terminate the read is not a nice thing to
do, but we don't have a lot of choice.  I can understand why it was never
tested; in fact John may never have intended it to work the way I'm
trying to use it.

Any insights will be greatly appreciated.


Disclaimer:  Any opinions are my own and have	    |  -bill
    nothing to do with the official policy or the   |   [email protected]
    management of L.B.N.L, who probably couldn't    |   Berkeley, CA
    care less about employees who play with trains. |   aka [email protected]

Navigate by Date:
Prev: MEDM makes a next step, doesn't it? Vladimir T. Romanovski
Next: MEDM upgrade message Ron Chestnut
Index: 1994  1995  1996  <19971998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Re: MEDM makes a next step, doesn't it? Chip Watson
Next: MEDM upgrade message Ron Chestnut
Index: 1994  1995  1996  <19971998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
ANJ, 10 Aug 2010 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·