Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System
On 05/28/2012 09:40 AM, Mark Rivers wrote:
Folks,
Eric Norum and I are proposing a change to asyn to enable standard asyn device support to set record timestamps based on time stamp information from an asyn driver. The change is backwards compatible. Here is the proposal:
- Add a timeStamp field to the asynUser structure
- Drivers can optionally set the timestamp field in the asynUser that is passed in interface read() operations and in callbacks to device support for input records.
- asyn device support sets the record timestamps based on pasynUser->timeStamp if the following are both true:
- The record TSE field is set to epicsTimeEventDeviceTime (-2)
- pasynUser->timeStamp is non-zero
The idea is that the asyn driver can determine the time stamp very close to the time that the I/O operation completed. The record timestamp can thus be set much closer to the "true" time than if the time is determined with recGblGetTimeStamp later on when the record processes.
Before we commit this change I'd like to hear if this would be useful to others. I'm particularly interested if this would help the LCLS and other FEL folks who want to timestamp areaDetector and other asyn driver records with the pulse identification.
Hi Mark,
I apologize for the late response.
Here at the LCLS we are indeed interested in this.
We rely on our pulseID or "beam flavor" for correlation on a pulse by
pulse basis.
This will be useful for any piece of data acquisition hardware which has
an asyn driver.
For example, if I wanted to use your ip330-asyn driver for beam
synchronous acquisition (BSA)
I hope to encourage more asyn-based drivers here at LCLS but we do need
the capability to grab the pulseID
with the "TSE = -2" technique. :)
At this time, there are 2 waveform digitizer VME boards that we have
started to work on:
(1) Struck SIS3350
(2) Struck SIS3302
Can we make these asyn drivers and still integrate with GTR? Eric any
comments?
If the driver is indeed asyn, we like the proposal for getting the
pulseID that you mention above. :)
I wonder how Jeff Hill (LANL) will correlate his data at LANSCE?
Cheers,
Ernest
Are there changes to the proposal that would make it more useful, but still general?
Cheers,
Mark
- Replies:
- Re: Proposed change in asyn - request for comments Eric Norum
- References:
- Proposed change in asyn - request for comments Mark Rivers
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: Problem when caput to waveform record Andrew Johnson
- Next:
Re: Proposed change in asyn - request for comments Eric Norum
- 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:
Proposed change in asyn - request for comments Mark Rivers
- Next:
Re: Proposed change in asyn - request for comments Eric Norum
- 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