NEWS
LinuxCNC 2.5.2 Release
There are no translations available.

LinuxCNC 2.5.2 Update Released (changelog).
 
LinuxCNC 2.5.1 Release
There are no translations available.

LinuxCNC 2.5.1 Update Released (changelog). If the Package Manager does not prompt you to upgrade see this page.

 
LinuxCNC 2.5.0 Release
There are no translations available.

New major release (changelog). See the instructions to update your system from EMC 2.4 to LinuxCNC 2.5.
 
Home Forum Hardware Computer Why not USB? (again)

Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Why not USB? (again)

Why not USB? (again) 19 Sep 2011 12:15 #13312

  • grawp
  • grawp's Avatar
I've just read, that USB's Interrupt transfer mode can guarantee latency of 125uS. So why can't it be used for CNC control?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re:Why not USB? (again) 19 Sep 2011 12:33 #13314

  • cmorley
  • cmorley's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 1489
  • Thank you received: 40
  • Karma: 89
If that is true then it is within our timing limits.
Do enough USB devices support transfer mode?
The biggest obstacle is just finding someone who will build a working system.

reference:
wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/emcinfo.pl?Emc2HardwareDesign
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re:Why not USB? (again) 19 Sep 2011 12:53 #13316

  • BigJohnT
  • BigJohnT's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 4960
  • Thank you received: 87
  • Karma: 134
Do you have a link to this info?

John
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re:Why not USB? (again) 19 Sep 2011 14:23 #13318

  • PCW
  • PCW's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 1668
  • Thank you received: 87
  • Karma: 116
Yes, you can set uFrame times of USB 2.0 to 125 uSec but I dont think that you can actually guarantee 125 uSec latency especially if the USB system is not totally dedicated to motion control.
(it would be almost impossible to share the USB system with non real time tasks)
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re:Why not USB? (again) 20 Sep 2011 14:24 #13335

  • grawp
  • grawp's Avatar
BigJohnT wrote:
Do you have a link to this info?

John

www.embeddedsys.com/subpages/resources/i...InterruptsAndUSB.pdf
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re:Why not USB? (again) 20 Sep 2011 16:25 #13336

  • BigJohnT
  • BigJohnT's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 4960
  • Thank you received: 87
  • Karma: 134
It seems to say that maximum latency is 125 usec to 4 seconds on high speed and says the smallest possible interrupt is 125 usec... I don't see anything that says it guarantees a steady 125 usec latency.
Depending on many factors the host processor may not be able to transfer the interrupt data at
the requested interval. OS design, driver design, application software, CPU speed, and bus
bandwidth may all limit the host’s ability to meet the obligation to poll for interrupt transfer data
within the required interval.

John
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Moderators: ArcEye
Time to create page: 1.146 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
© 2013 LinuxCNC.org
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU General Public License.