EPICS Home

Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System


 
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  <20192020  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  <20192020 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Beckhoff BK9000 support survey
From: Hinko Kocevar via Tech-talk <tech-talk@aps.anl.gov>
To: "Dunning, Michael" <mdunning@slac.stanford.edu>, Jeong Han Lee <citadel.lee@gmail.com>, "tech-talk@aps.anl.gov" <tech-talk@aps.anl.gov>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 09:30:09 +0000
Hi Han,

would the asyn driver that ESS has work with the coupler in subject - BK9000?

Thanks,
//hinko
________________________________________
From: tech-talk-bounces@aps.anl.gov <tech-talk-bounces@aps.anl.gov> on behalf of Jeong Han Lee via Tech-talk <tech-talk@aps.anl.gov>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 4:26:26 PM
To: Dunning, Michael; tech-talk@aps.anl.gov
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Beckhoff BK9000 support survey

Hi Mike,

   ESS has a bit unique and generic EPICS support based on asyn. Please
look at the following talk

http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/icalepcs2017/talks/mocpl05_talk.pdf

   We've called it as ecmc (EtherCat Motion Control), but we extend it
to generic I/O supports. The current support modules in the enclosed file.

   Unfortunately, they are within the closed repository, but we are
willing to share it within EPICS community.

   HTH,
   Han




On 6/27/19 5:38 PM, Dunning, Michael via Tech-talk wrote:
> Thanks everybody for the responses so far.
>
> I should add that, as Davide mentioned, for some modules we need to
> access the Beckhoff "hidden" registers which can only be accessed
> through other registers.  This makes the modbus "driver" approach
> necessary if we want to cover all modules.  In our case we've needed
> to access these registers for changing configuration parameters, e.g.
> changing thermocouple types or ADC scaling, or for motor
> configuration.
>
> Mark - thanks for pointing out the new C++ version of modbus.  It
> sounds like we could get rid of our custom modbus driver code and
> instead call modbus functions directly from our asynPortDriver.  This
> should simplify things and make maintenance a bit easier.  This
> definitely sounds like something we should pursue.
>
> Thanks again to all who have responded.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Dunning
> SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
> 2575 Sand Hill Road
> Menlo Park, CA 94025
> (650) 926-5200
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:52 AM Mark Rivers <rivers@cars.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> I would only do this if the application is complex enough that you need to move logic from the database down into C++ code. I'd still make use of the standard modbus support module and use it like a library to handle the modbus protocol (since it's been around for 10+ years and is well tested, that would be my starting point
>>
>> In the new asynPortDriver branch you can do the following:
>>
>>
>>
>>          drvAsynIPPortConfigure("Koyo1","camaro:502",0,0,1);
>>          asynSetOption("Koyo1", 0, "disconnectOnReadTimeout", "Y");
>>
>>
>>
>>          modbusInterposeConfig("Koyo1", modbusLinkTCP, 5000, 0);
>>
>>
>>
>>          // Use absolute addressing, modbusStartAddress=-1.
>>          drvModbusAsyn *pModbus = new drvModbusAsyn("K1", "Koyo1", 0, 2, -1, 256, dataTypeUInt16, 0, "Koyo");
>>
>>          // Write 10 bits at address 2048
>>          memset(data, 0, sizeof(data));
>>          data[0] = 1;
>>          data[2] = 1;
>>          data[4] = 1;
>>          data[6] = 1;
>>          data[8] = 1;
>>          printf(" Writing [1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0] to adddress 2048\n");
>>          /* asynStatus doModbusIO(int slave, int function, int start, epicsUInt16 *data, int len); */
>>          pModbus->doModbusIO(0, MODBUS_WRITE_MULTIPLE_COILS, 2048, data, 10);
>>
>>
>>
>>          Because the drvModbusAsyn constructor was called with startAddress=-1 doModbusIO can write to any address with any function code.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 27, 2019, at 12:23 PM, Pearson, Matthew R. via Tech-talk <tech-talk@aps.anl.gov<mailto:tech-talk@aps.anl.gov>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> One version uses only the epics modbus module.  This has no driver so requires
>> less maintenance, but makes setting up IOCs more time consuming and results in
>> a lot of code duplication.
>>
>>
>> If the only problem with this method is the code duplication in each IOC then it's best to move the database into templates in a support module. Then all the IOC has to do is include them in a substitutions file. You could have one template per module type. And if there is common database code between modules then separate that out into common template files that are included in the per-module templates.
>>
>> Then in the IOC startup script you may have a large list of calls to drvModbusAsynConfigure in order to setup the modbus ports for different address ranges. You can also put this in the support module, and just include it in the IOC st.cmd, passing in macros as necessary. For example, this is what I do for one of my applications for the Moxa ioLogik modules:
>>
>> #E1214 Unit (6 DI and 6 Relay)
>> epicsEnvSet("IP_ADDR","192.168.200.177:502")
>> epicsEnvSet("IP_PORT","m1ip")
>> epicsEnvSet("PORT","m1")
>> < $(MOXA)/st_scripts/st_common.cmd
>>
>> Where st_common.cmd is just a list of calls to drvModbusAsynConfigure. You may or may not need a different list for each type of module, depending on the modbus registry maps.
>>
>> Another version uses asynPortDriver and some custom modbus code.  This is
>> designed to make setting up IOCs easier, but requires maintenance of the driver
>> code.
>>
>> I would only do this if the application is complex enough that you need to move logic from the database down into C++ code. I'd still make use of the standard modbus support module and use it like a library to handle the modbus protocol (since it's been around for 10+ years and is well tested, that would be my starting point).
>>
>>
>> Another uses custom epics device support.  This requires writing device support
>> for each bus terminal, and has resulted in a pretty ugly codebase.  This is our
>> least favored solution going forward.
>>
>>
>> There's no need to write support this way anymore, since Asyn gives you the device support for free.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Matt
>>
>>

Replies:
Re: [EXTERNAL] Beckhoff BK9000 support survey Torsten Bögershausen via Tech-talk
References:
Beckhoff BK9000 support survey Dunning, Michael via Tech-talk
RE: [EXTERNAL] Beckhoff BK9000 support survey Pearson, Matthew R. via Tech-talk
Re: [EXTERNAL] Beckhoff BK9000 support survey Mark Rivers via Tech-talk
Re: [EXTERNAL] Beckhoff BK9000 support survey Dunning, Michael via Tech-talk
Re: [EXTERNAL] Beckhoff BK9000 support survey Jeong Han Lee via Tech-talk

Navigate by Date:
Prev: epics performance test tools or results Jeong Han Lee via Tech-talk
Next: Re: Camonitor with client dictated update rate Hinko Kocevar via Tech-talk
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  <20192020 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Re: [EXTERNAL] Beckhoff BK9000 support survey Jeong Han Lee via Tech-talk
Next: Re: [EXTERNAL] Beckhoff BK9000 support survey Torsten Bögershausen via Tech-talk
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  <20192020