Hi,
There's clearly a difference here. You get:
epics> dbpf mkp:Mot:Sim1.STUP 1
2013/08/09 11:34:35.688 mkp:Mot:Sim1 devMotorAsyn::update_values, needUpdate=0
2013/08/09 11:34:35.688 devMotorAsyn::send_msg: mkp:Mot:Sim1 command=10, pact=1
2013/08/09 11:34:35.688 sim1 addr 1 queueRequest priority 0 not lockHolder
2013/08/09 11:34:35.688 asynManager::portThread port=sim1 callback
DBR_STRING: "BUSY"
2013/08/09 11:34:35.688 devMotorAsyn::asynCallback: mkp:Mot:Sim1 command=18, ivalue=0, dvalue=0.000000
2013/08/09 11:34:35.688 drvMotorAsyn::writeInt32, reason=109, value=0
but I get:
epics> dbpf mkp:Mot:Sim1.STUP 1
2013/08/09 09:23:50.305 mkp:Mot:Sim1 devMotorAsyn::update_values, needUpdate=0
2013/08/09 09:23:50.305 devMotorAsyn::send_msg: mkp:Mot:Sim1 command=10, pact=1
2013/08/09 09:23:50.305 sim1 addr 1 queueRequest priority 0 not lockHolder
DBR_STRING: "BUSY"
epics> 2013/08/09 09:23:50.305 asynManager::portThread port=sim1 callback
2013/08/09 09:23:50.305 devMotorAsyn::asynCallback: mkp:Mot:Sim1 command=18, ivalue=0, dvalue=0.000000, pasynUser->reason=109
2013/08/09 09:23:50.305 mkp:Mot:Sim1 devMotorAsyn::statusCallback new value=[p:0.000000,e:0.000000,s:a]
2013/08/09 09:23:50.305 mkp:Mot:Sim1 devMotorAsyn::update_values, needUpdate=1
2013/08/09 09:23:50.306 drvMotorAsyn::writeInt32, reason=109, value=0
The reason that STUP is not being set back is because the record isn't being processed due to a callback from the driver (the statusCallback function).
Also, I'm not sure we're using the same version of the motor record. The devMotorAsyn::asynCallback print statement is different. The pasynUser->reason=109 is missing from yours. This reason field is actually the one used to trigger the status update in the driver.
I took a look at motor 6-7-1… are you sure you're not using that version, even when you tested R6-8? In the sim driver I see this added recently:
* 2012-10-09 rls - Added motorAxisforceCallback to support motor record
* GET_INFO commands.
which might explain it….
Cheers,
Matt
On Aug 9, 2013, at 11:37 AM, "Konrad, Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm also using R6-8 here.
>>
>> If you send me a tar file of your IOC, I'll build it here and see if I can reproduce it.
>> Maybe a detailed Asyn trace would also help.
> See attachment. Let me know if you need further details.
>
> Martin
>
> <testSimSupport.tar.bz2><ioc_shell_with_debugging_output.txt>
- References:
- motorRecord simulation & STUP field Konrad, Martin
- Re: motorRecord simulation & STUP field Ron Sluiter
- Re: motorRecord simulation & STUP field Konrad, Martin
- Re: motorRecord simulation & STUP field Konrad, Martin
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: motorRecord simulation & STUP field Ron Sluiter
- Next:
Re: motorRecord simulation & STUP field Konrad, Martin
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
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: motorRecord simulation & STUP field Konrad, Martin
- Next:
Re: motorRecord simulation & STUP field Konrad, Martin
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
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
|