[etherlab-users] new beckhoff xml has DWORD variables
Julian Stoev
julian.stoev at gmail.com
Wed Jun 10 16:43:35 CEST 2009
More from me:
I start to suspect my device EL5101 has different revision number from
the one defined in Etherlab.
Here is what I get from
ethercat slave -v
=== Slave 2 ===
State: OP
Flag: +
Identity:
Vendor Id: 0x00000002
Product code: 0x13ed3052
Revision number: 0x03fb0000
Serial number: 0x00000000
Mailboxes:
RX: 0x1800/48, TX: 0x1880/48
Supported protocols: CoE, FoE
General:
Group: Measuring
Image name:
Order number: EL5101
Device name: EL5101 1K. Inc. Encoder 5V
CoE details:
Enable SDO: yes
Enable SDO Info: yes
Enable PDO Assign: yes
Enable PDO Configuration: no
Enable Upload at startup: no
Enable SDO complete access: no
Flags:
Enable SafeOp: no
Enable notLRW: no
Current consumption: 130 mA
And here is what I see inside the mask of the Simulink block:
product_code = hex2dec('13ed3052');
revision_no = hex2dec('00010000');
I tried to change the Simulink code by breaking the library link and
editing the block to match the revision_no
product_code = hex2dec('13ed3052');
revision_no = hex2dec('03fb0000');
But after I press Apply for the mask, I get a message like this:
Error using => maskedit>ApplyMaskData at 780
Error reported by S-function 'ec_slave2' in 'in_out/ENC_0':
Variable context:
EtherCatInfo.Descriptions.Devices.Device.TxPdo(8).Entry(1)
Error determining data type of symbol 64: Unsigned data must be in the
range [1..32]
I am quite confused for now...
Am I on the right track?
--
Julian Stoev, PhD.
Control Researcher
--
Julian Stoev, PhD.
Control Researcher
More information about the Etherlab-users
mailing list