My first message was incorrect - sorry.
I meant to say that the slave pvs update but the device does not. So,
I guess this is an EthernetIP device support question.
So, I will instead ask if anyone has seen this behavior?
John
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following is an attempt to control two slave pvs by a master pv
via a dfanout record.
The desired behavior is that wiggling masterC should cause both
slave1C and slave2C to follow.
record(ao, "masterC") {
field(DTYP, "SoftChannel")
field(OUT, "dfout PP")
field(SCAN, "Passive")
}
record(dfanout,"dfout") {
field(SCAN, "Passive")
field(OUTA, "slave1C PP")
field(OUTB, "slave2C PP")
}
record(ao,"slave1C") {
field(SCAN,"Passive")
field(DTYP,"EtherIP")
field(OUT, "@cpu epics_outputs[0]")
}
record(ao,"slave2C") {
field(SCAN,"Passive")
field(DTYP,"EtherIP")
field(OUT, "@cpu epics_outputs[1]")
}
---------------------------------
If I create a script as follows:
caput -t masterC 1
caput -t masterC 2
When executed, the result is that sometimes it works (i.e. slave1C and
slave2C have the final value 2) and sometimes it does not (slave1C and
slave2C have the final value 1).
Is the record linking in the above example flawed? If so, is there a
way to make this reliable?
TIA,
John Sinclair