#emc-devel | Logs for 2010-05-10

[00:02:16] <CIA-2> EMC: 03cmorley 07master * r1316ae409f98 10/src/hal/components/mux16.comp: Add a mux16 component
[00:02:17] <CIA-2> EMC: 03cmorley 07master * rb09c95c98b67 10/src/emc/usr_intf/halui.cc: Add direct value input option to overrides
[08:46:45] <micges_lucid> * micges_lucid making rtai
[12:30:33] <jepler> micges_work: thanks for fixing up some of that wiki stuff
[12:32:08] <micges_work> welcome
[13:59:46] <jepler> I'm going to send out a corrections e-mail about the 2.4.0 announcement. so far I have the typos in the release notes that micges found, and a mention that you probably want to disable the buildbot package repositories
[13:59:53] <jepler> anybody know of something else I should mention?
[14:00:38] <cradek> is it true that many of the sample configs are broken? (NMLFILE)
[14:01:27] <jepler> grep tells me I missed one
[14:01:27] <jepler> configs/classicladder/cl-estop/cl-estop.ini:NML_FILE = emc.nml
[14:02:06] <cradek> ok, I guess they were talking about their own old configs
[14:03:30] <cradek> I don't see the firmware packages under http://linuxcnc.org/hardy/dists/hardy/emc2.4/
[14:03:43] <cradek> how do you get the new hostmot2-firmware-*?
[14:03:45] <jepler> I'm not sure. It's true that you have to EITHER remove NML_FILE from your ini (and you might as well remove emc.nml) OR copy a new emc.nml, because emc.nml changed from 2.3 to 2.4
[14:03:54] <jepler> they're in /base/ because they work with 2.3 or with 2.4.
[14:04:17] <cradek> oh ok, I didn't look back far enough.
[14:04:24] <micges_work> jepler: wait few hours, I'll look at this at home
[14:04:34] <micges_work> maybe I'll found some more typos
[14:04:34] <cradek> I sure need to update my machines
[14:07:09] <micges_work> bbl
[15:11:44] <mozmck_work> I put my notes I have so far for lucid on the wiki.
[15:13:20] <mozmck_work> I'm still having boot problems on some computers with the latest rtai patches. I'm going to try disabling SMP in the config next and see if that helps. I did that with 9.10 and it didn't seem to make a difference - so we'll see.
[15:15:07] <mozmck_work> If anyone sees any kernel settings that need to be enabled or disabled that I don't have in my notes, please add them.
[15:16:27] <mozmck_work> oh, looks like someone found my notes and linked to them on the front page!
[15:30:46] <cradek> seb_kuzminsky: are you flying or driving to cnc workshop?
[15:32:10] <seb_kuzminsky> flying
[15:32:11] <cradek> seb_kuzminsky: I'm asking because jeff and I will have a few extra days and plan to do some other stuff near the area
[15:32:21] <seb_kuzminsky> fun!
[15:32:55] <seb_kuzminsky> i gotta get back to my family... squeezing in a handful of days for the workshop is tough enough...
[15:37:21] <jepler> if I don't modify VERSION or debian/changelog, update-dch-from-git makes a package name like 2.4.0-1-gabcdefg which will be greater than 2.4.0 but less than 2.4.1. Is that good enough to let the buildbot 2.4 packages be reenabled?
[15:45:53] <cradek> mozmck_work: is there anything obvious in common between the machines you've tried that won't boot?
[15:57:13] <mozmck_work> right now I'm just trying on two machines. Both are intel P4, one that boots about half the time uses onboard intel video, the other has an nvidia card.
[15:59:03] <cradek> yuck, half the time?
[15:59:16] <cradek> what's it do when it doesn't boot?
[15:59:17] <mozmck_work> The one with nvidia card doesn't want to boot at all. If I disable modesetting it will boot into a terminal, but can't start X because it can't find screens or sometihng.
[15:59:38] <mozmck_work> black screen with blinking cursor immediately after grub.
[15:59:58] <cradek> have you tried to rebuild the stock kernel without any new patch at all?
[16:00:16] <mozmck_work> hit the power button, power back up and it will generally boot fine then.
[16:01:03] <mozmck_work> no, I figured that would be the same as the one from ubuntu. and it takes 1.5 or 2 hours to do a build on that machine.
[16:01:48] <cradek> their setup that loads the (X?) video drivers early for that splash screen thing has got to be complicated. I wonder if it's not a problem with rtai at all.
[16:02:54] <mozmck_work> I think the splash screen is using KMS and not X drivers. I think it is a problem with KMS and rtai conflicting.
[16:04:39] <SWPadnos> you can get the grub menu by holding a shift key during boot
[16:05:07] <cradek> I'm sure you know much more about it than I do - I was just thinking I'd be tempted to try to rebuild a totally unmodified setup and see if even that works.
[16:05:11] <SWPadnos> I found this out when installing nvidia drivers prevented my machine from booting correctly :)
[16:05:20] <SWPadnos> (luckily I had a smartphone with me)
[16:05:58] <SWPadnos> mozmck_work, does the system with the nvidia card also have onboard video?
[16:14:17] <mozmck_work> well the stock ubuntu kernel loads fine, and I'm using the ubuntu git repository for my builds.
[16:15:25] <mozmck_work> SWPadnos: I have a multiboot setup and the grub menu comes up automatically, but that's good to know for single boot setups.
[16:16:34] <SWPadnos> ah, ok
[16:16:36] <mozmck_work> The nvidia machine does have onboard video. Crazy thing is this machine boots fine from a slightly older ubuntu kernel and magma patch, and gets good latency readings.
[16:16:47] <SWPadnos> I was a bit scared when ESC didn't work :)
[16:17:25] <SWPadnos> I don't know if it's still there, but there was an issue with nvidia drivers in the beta stage for 10.04
[16:17:25] <micges> mozmck_work: are you building very latest kernel version with rtai?
[16:18:02] <mozmck_work> latest ubuntu kernel. 2.6.32-22.34
[16:19:02] <micges> ok
[16:19:07] <mozmck_work> yeah, this machine with the nvidia card boots fine with 2.6.32-20-rtai (my build of course), and I think the magma patch was for
[16:20:31] <seb_kuzminsky> jepler: i agree that's the version number it'll get, and that that version number will work well
[16:21:07] <mozmck_work> same kernel config... paolo said the latest patch (for had some boot fix-ups, but maybe I should try the latest kernel with the older patch.
[16:21:11] <seb_kuzminsky> i have not disabled the buildbot in any way, the only thing i did was move the "1:2.4.0" packages out of the way so folks apts won't see them
[16:21:30] <jepler> seb_kuzminsky: OK
[16:21:32] <seb_kuzminsky> next commit on 2.4 will produce a package like you said, and ppl will be offered the update
[16:21:43] <seb_kuzminsky> i *think* that's what we want...
[16:21:54] <jepler> yes; if people want to stay on the bleeding edge of 2.4 development, we'll benefit from that
[16:22:10] <jepler> .. as long as that's what they really wanted, which is why I'm going to mention it in a follow-up to the announcement
[16:22:38] <seb_kuzminsky> good call
[16:23:17] <micges> mozmck_work: can you check if your wiki page about rtai comiling is up to date?
[16:24:00] <micges> I have hard time to follow it, but I've managed to compile stock ubuntu
[16:24:31] <CIA-2> EMC: 03seb 07master * r72717505d2b3 10/debian/update-dch-from-git: don't prepend to deb changelog if it's up-to-date
[16:25:23] <mozmck_work> micges: I don't think I put anything under rtai yet. I think my stuff on the kernel is up to date though. I use it each time I do something because I forget stuff...
[16:26:24] <micges> ok, I was doing it first time, I'll check it again tomorrow
[16:26:47] <mozmck_work> some of this I got in different places, but I had to figure some out myself. They changed file locations for some things between karmic and lucid, and a lot of the information you find elsewhere is wrong (says the ubuntu kernel folks!).
[16:27:27] <micges> I've noticed ;)
[16:27:37] <mozmck_work> (of course, some of mine might be as well)
[16:30:33] <mozmck_work> If you can make some of it easier to follow that would be great. I'll be refining it along the way too.
[16:32:05] <micges> I'll try tomorrow
[16:36:20] <seb_kuzminsky> jepler: if we merge that commit into 2.4, then when you release 2.4.1 the buildbot should make the correct deb for you, & the release manager can just copy it to the deb archive on linuxcnc.org
[16:36:56] <jepler> seb_kuzminsky: that's an interesting possibility
[16:45:41] <micges> jepler: I didn't found any more typos on wiki
[16:45:53] <jepler> micges: thanks for reading it over carefully
[16:46:07] <micges> np
[17:06:57] <ries> hey guys, should rtai/emc2 beable to work in parallels? On my laptop I compiled rtai and emc without problems, but within parallels I keep getting : Pid: 2675, comm: insmod Not tainted ( #1) Parallels Virtual Platform EIP: 0060:[<d08fad8a>] EFLAGS: 00010246 CPU: 0 ..........
[17:59:11] <cradek> what is parallels?
[18:01:37] <jepler> cradek: it's a virtualization software; I think it may be for mac
[18:02:18] <cradek> you can't control a machine that way, and if you just want to run the simulator, you can build in sim mode without rtai.
[18:02:35] <cradek> there is no point whatsoever to having rtai inside a virtual machine
[18:11:30] <jepler> I see you built your own kernel; do you know that the kernel is good? Does it work on a non-virtualized PC?
[18:12:37] <aystarik> did anyone considered xenomai as rtai replacement?
[18:12:51] <jepler> aystarik: I don't know of anybody who's looked into it
[18:13:38] <aystarik> I am running it's latency test on 64 bit machine, it gives me 2.65 us without reserving CPU...
[18:14:07] <jepler> its own latency test? or do you have emc running on it?
[18:14:17] <aystarik> it's own.
[18:14:47] <aystarik> no, I wanted to see if it's worth the trouble...
[18:15:14] <jepler> darn, my advice didn't get Neil running :(
[18:16:08] <aystarik> sorry?
[18:17:32] <jepler> aystarik: someone on the mailing list named Neil is having trouble with 2.4.0 on his system.
[18:19:58] <aystarik> what's the problem of stable release... No one cares about development branch until it becomes 'stable'...
[18:21:30] <cradek> aystarik: even worse, when people won't use any .0 release
[18:22:52] <cradek> aystarik: (I'm not sure any active developers even have any ppmc hardware - that makes it pretty hard to test)
[18:23:23] <aystarik> cradek: with linux kernel I did not happen to hit .0 release :) started around .12 :)
[18:25:07] <aystarik> jon elson seems to be active at cnczone, no?
[18:26:15] <cradek> no idea, I don't read cnczone
[19:06:09] <SWPadnos> I have a USC, but no EMC2 machine at the moment
[19:06:33] <SWPadnos> actually, I think I could test shortly, I have a machine with EMC2/RTAI and I think it even has a parallel prot
[19:06:35] <SWPadnos> port
[19:06:41] <jepler> on my system without a ppmc, I get this: [ 333.496528] PPMC: ERROR: no boards found on bus 0, port 0378
[19:06:57] <jepler> which is past the error Neil is getting
[19:07:36] <SWPadnos> ppmc shouldn't use PARPORT at all, so there's clearly something else going on
[19:07:52] <jepler> what?
[19:08:10] <SWPadnos> ppms uses a parallel port, but it doesn't use the (linux) parport driver
[19:08:13] <SWPadnos> gah
[19:08:15] <SWPadnos> ppmc
[19:08:18] <jepler> in 2.4 it does
[19:08:25] <SWPadnos> oh. then nevermind me
[19:09:01] <SWPadnos> geez. I really need to catch up
[19:09:37] <jepler> in 2.4 all the parport drivers (dumb parport, pluto, 7i43, ppmc/usc) can use the linux-detected devices cooperatively, or they can do it the old way
[19:43:56] <micges> cradek: we're maintain one gui and barely all rest
[19:44:26] <micges> :/
[19:47:35] <alex_joni> and still there are people out there creating new guis
[19:48:47] <mozmck_work> in pascal... :(
[19:49:22] <cradek> I'm writing my next gui in lispqt
[19:49:40] <mozmck_work> :) why not cobol?
[19:49:42] <micges> my will be in d
[19:50:17] <mozmck_work> D does look interesting. I keep hearing more of it - is it growing?
[19:50:29] <cradek> apl + google web toolkit + Flash
[19:50:42] <andypugh> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck
[19:51:22] <micges> mozmck_work: yes it's going to be fairy adult soon
[19:52:23] <mozmck_work> fairy? or fairly
[19:53:27] <micges> fairly ;)
[19:54:30] <mozmck_work> ah, thought so. I've downloaded D and played with it a little, and it looks promising.
[19:55:05] <mozmck_work> A toolkit I've used a little now that seems promising is fltk.
[19:58:18] <micges> I still like python + gtk
[19:59:14] <mozmck_work> I'm not very used to python yet. Still do mostly C/C++
[20:08:54] <jepler> I don't see why anyone would develop for a language without an open-source compiler or interpreter and runtime... I see that D now has an open source compiler (gdc, based on gcc) so perhaps I can be less than totally dismissive of it..
[20:09:57] <jepler> (or is it? the gdc page refers to needing the dmd front-end which as far as I could see on digitalmars.com is not open source)
[20:16:41] <mozmck_work> gdc works, but they say it's not as good as dmd yet
[20:17:43] <mozmck_work> I thought it was fully open source, but I may be wrong. That probably would help D a lot though to have a really good open source compiler.
[20:19:12] <mozmck_work> One thing I can't understand is the push for C# on linux. Seems like anything using Mono is really slow too.
[20:22:26] <jepler> whether it's Java, C#, D, or some other language, I can't blame developers for continuing to want something better than C++.
[20:25:14] <jepler> > Note: all D users agree that by downloading and using D, or reading the D specs, they will explicitly identify any claims to intellectual property rights with a copyright or patent notice in any posted or emailed feedback sent to Digital Mars.
[20:26:10] <cradek> !!??
[20:26:24] <jepler> that's hiding down at the bottom of http://www.digitalmars.com/d/
[20:26:29] <cradek> lovely
[20:26:57] <jepler> can you say "desert island test"?
[20:27:14] <andypugh> What does that paragraph actually mean? I thought I understood english.
[20:27:46] <cradek> they claim that if you don't do an explicit thing, you implicitly are giving up rights that you normally automatically have
[20:28:56] <andypugh> Which sounds to include reading the documentation?
[20:29:15] <cradek> apparently
[20:31:27] <mozmck_work> only relevant if you post or send feedback to Digital Mars.
[20:31:44] <cradek> or care about such things
[20:31:54] <mozmck_work> I think a lot of forums claim copyright of everything you post.
[20:32:37] <cradek> well that's asinine too, if so
[20:33:17] <jepler> I was interpreting it in yet a different way
[20:33:53] <jepler> namely, if you use the D language or read the D specs, AND you are aware of copyright or patent infringement, you MUST contact Digital Mars about it
[20:34:05] <mozmck_work> ah, that could be too.
[20:34:43] <cradek> I'm with andypugh now about not being able to parse it
[20:35:25] <mozmck_work> except for the word "any" in front of "posted or emailed..." Not clearly worded for sure.
[20:37:39] <cradek> often, people use poorly-thought-out language to express poorly-thought-out ideas
[20:37:59] <cradek> (wait, is my prejudice showing?)
[20:39:07] <jepler> I appreciate that they want to have the opportunity to fix any IP issues in their software, and they can't do that without being aware of them.
[20:40:01] <mozmck_work> yep.
[20:40:58] <cradek> the 'any' causes a parse error when I try to read it the way jeff said
[20:41:12] <jepler> maybe I'm all wrong, then
[20:41:21] <mozmck_work> yeah, that's what I was trying to say.
[20:41:49] <mozmck_work> heh, not that you were all wrong jepler! but what cradek said.
[20:42:03] <cradek> and it doesn't specify that they mean IP claims related to D
[20:42:08] <jepler> cradek: well, no
[20:42:25] <jepler> so are they saying that if I e-mail them, I'd better have one of those lengthy disclaimers at the bottom
[20:42:45] <cradek> I still think it says if you post [where?] or email them, and you don't have an explicit statement of copyright, you implicitly renounce it
[20:43:18] <cradek> ... anytime after you've read [some of?] their documentation
[20:43:19] <mozmck_work> or at least allow them to use it without asking you further.
[20:43:41] <jepler> I guess I don't care about the dissection of this bit of legalese that much
[20:44:02] <jepler> except I can't help but observe that it's not asking for identification of claims relating only to the message
[20:49:25] <jepler> http://www.wired.com/magazine/wp-content/images/ff_radioshack/ff_radioshack10_f.jpg -- only 3x as much as an iphone!
[20:50:40] <cradek> I miss full-bandwidth analog phones that were big enough to put the microphone in front of your mouth where it actually works
[20:51:15] <JT-Dev> I miss my bag phone that had great reception anywhere
[20:52:24] <cradek> for another $69.95 you could get a data interface for tandy laptop computers (the model 100 I imagine)
[20:53:19] <cradek> 15 hours standby / 1.5 hours talk
[20:53:32] <cradek> that's where our phones are actually better today
[20:54:08] <JT-Dev> my bag phone stayed plugged into my truck battery all the time
[20:54:10] <cradek> analog pocket size phones had a hard time lasting through an 8 hr work day on a battery
[20:54:44] <cradek> you needed a second battery for the evening, and then it was hard to charge both again by morning
[20:54:45] <andypugh> I have a friend with an Android G1 which is about that bad.
[20:55:00] <JT-Dev> did the "edit tool table" thingy get tossed? I see it defaults to vim now
[20:55:14] <cradek> JT-Dev: depends on the config
[20:55:43] <JT-Dev> I'm running the axis 2.4/5 sim
[20:56:01] <cradek> I guess someone changed it then...
[20:56:20] <JT-Dev> * JT-Dev goes to look at the ini for it
[20:56:31] <andypugh> Is comp the "preferred" way to code standalone HAL modules?
[20:57:42] <JT-Dev> hmm I don't see an entry in the ini for tooleditor
[20:59:29] <JT-Dev> greppping I find axis.py:tooleditor = inifile.find("DISPLAY", "TOOL_EDITOR") or "tooledit"