[etherlab-dev] EoE patchs and questions

[Graeme Foot]

Hi,

I’m off from work for the weekend, but I did view the contents of 0x808 (size 8) before and after doing a write of zero and all the values stayed the same. SM1 is configured with its default values so I’m assuming writing a zero will set it back to its defaults, so will remain the same. Needs more testing but ran out of time this week.

I got to the point of writing a zero to SM1 due to noticing that the rx communications resumed when I manually changed the state of the slave from OP to PREOP. So I followed the steps in the state machine. That was the command that did it. Other things I tried like rescans or unplugging the coupler (keeping power on the EoE slave didn’t work).

I don’t know of any slaves that might require OP mode to run as I’m new to EoE too. From my memory of the code on initial startup it remains in PREOP and its only on a master deactivate that it remains in OP (and it does so by putting EoE slaves back into OP after all slaves have been set to PREOP).

Time for more testing next week. Yes I will be  wiresharking the Ethercat frames. I’ve been checking the Ethernet side so far. Will need to grab another computer to check the Ethercat side.

Thanks,
Graeme.

________________________________
From: Gavin Lambert <gavinl at compacsort.com>
Sent: Friday, 16 February 2018 7:47:17 PM
To: Graeme Foot; etherlab-dev at etherlab.org
Subject: RE: EoE patchs and questions

Those sound like great changes to have.

I suspect the EoE-OP thing came from an assumption that the slave had to be in OP to transfer EoE frames; there was previously a similar assumption regarding the DC reference clock that was fixed in [559f2f]<https://sourceforge.net/p/etherlabmaster/code/ci/559f2f9c5b08700f2e4722f498799236a2c9f78a/>.  I don’t have any experience with EoE myself but a quick glance through the manual for EL6614 does suggest that it will happily do EoE in PREOP and above.  Do you think there could be any older slaves that might need OP for that?

The register write to 0x808 as a recovery from that condition seems a bit peculiar – most of those registers are read-only while SM1 is enabled – though you’re writing 0 to 0x80E, which should disable the SM, which then ought to stop it working entirely, unless something reconfigures it.

Perhaps inspecting other SM registers might be interesting?  Or see if there’s anything noticeable around that time in a Wireshark trace (if you have some way to detect exactly when it stops)?  Does the problem still happen with fewer patches applied?

From: Graeme Foot
Sent: Friday, 16 February 2018 19:01
To: etherlab-dev at etherlab.org
Subject: [etherlab-dev] EoE patchs and questions

Hi,

I've been setting up my system to use EoE (Ethernet over EtherCAT) with an RTAI user space application.

I've updated my master to revision 33b922ec1871 (default branch) and applied the gavinl (Gavin Lambert) patch set 20171108.
Linux 2.6.32.11
RTAI 3.8.1


Firstly I have a bit of a different use case for my EoE.  The current implementation auto creates and removes the eoe interfaces as the EoE capable slaves are configured and removed.  This means the interface is not available until the slave is scanned, and is not available if it is removed.  The eoe interface is also temporarily destroyed on a bus rescan.  In my use case I want to bridge the eoe interface to a real Ethernet interface.  So I want the eoe interface to always exists whether the slave is plugged in or not.

So the first patch does a few things:
1) adds explicit eoe_addif and eoe_delif tool functions so that you can manually add/remove an eoe iface without the slave existing
2) no longer deletes and eoe iface if the slave disappears
3) will relink a slave to an eoe iface when it is configured
4) will let you configure eoe ifaces via the sysconfig/ethercat config file
5) will let you turn off auto creation of eoe ifaces via the sysconfig/ethercat config file
6) no longer keeps slaves with EoE capability in OP mode when the master is deactivated

The above is made possible by using the netif_carrier_on() and netif_carrier_off() functions of the iface.  (The same as having a normal network interface up, but not plugged in.)

The other thing the patch does is fix a race condition bug in the eoe iface code.  The current implementation uses a struct list_head queue with a semaphore to protect it between the iface tx callback and the ethercat thread.  Sleeps are not allowed in the ifaces tx callback as it is in an interrupt context.  To fix this I have changed the queue to a ring buffer so that it no longer needs a lock.

FYI, when the race condition occurred I was getting:
BUG: scheduling while atomic
Call Trace:
[<c0146aa2>] ? ktime_get_real+0x0/0x29
[<c0146987>] ? ktime_get+0x0/0x88

Florian you may be interested in this patch, especially the bug fix part.


The second patch is so that I can run the EoE pump without callbacks.  As I am using a user space RTAI application I cannot use callbacks as they would need to call back from a kernel context to the user space context.  Instead I am running a thread in my application that makes calls into EtherCAT in a similar fashion to the masters EoE thread.  I have created two functions (ecrt_master_eoe_is_open() and ecrt_master_eoe_process()) to call without application locks as the locks only need to be around the ecrt_master_receive() and ecrt_master_send_ext() calls.


Now for the question.  I have been hammering my test rig pretty hard with various communications (pings with multiple fragments multiple times a second from both directions, SDO calls to the EoE slave without a pause approx. 100 per second).  Every now and then (after around 10 to 30 minutes with the above tests) the receive mailbox (SM1) of the EoE slave stops responding (slave to master).  CoE reads to the slave also fail.  The transmit mailbox still continues to function.  The RX SM1 status register continually returns a zero value.  I have found that if I send the command below the receive mailbox starts to function again (until it doesn't):

  ethercat reg_write -p3 0x808 -tuint64 0

Has anyone else come across this?  At the moment I suspecting a Slave firmware bug (EL6614).  Does anyone have any other ideas?


Regards,
Graeme Foot.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.etherlab.org/pipermail/etherlab-dev/attachments/20180216/eb89b1ad/attachment-0003.htm>