[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: +
 Vendor Id:       0x00000002
 Product code:    0x13ed3052
 Revision number: 0x03fb0000
 Serial number:   0x00000000
 RX: 0x1800/48, TX: 0x1880/48
 Supported protocols: CoE, FoE
 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
   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:

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