CANBus-Programming

[BJ Freeman]

The ISOPOD has the hardware to implement two protocols, however there is no programming for it that I see.
so this thread will be for the programming.
I lot of the code will be Public domain (someone elses)
I will give credit for the source and link where possible.

Mostly it will be how to implement those source codes in ISOMAX.

[BJ Freeman]

here is a good link for familiarity
http://www.can-cia.de/canopen/

[BJ Freeman]

as well as have a PC program that monintors I would like to implement a data stream out one of the serial ports then the monitor program can interept and display data. this would allow monitoring of each ISOPOD board and would facilitate prototyping and debug.

[BJ Freeman]

This this is c, it will be converted to IsoMax
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=34714&release_id=94410

This link shows the interfaces for different vehicles.
http://www.techedge.com.au/vehicle/aldl8192/8192hw.htm

Note the MAX232 which is similar to the IsoPod max2321.


Yes I will tie this into the CANbus, eventually.

[larryat]

BJ,

Are you considering interfacing to CANOpen devices, or just using the CAN bus for privately-defined I/O?

-- Larry

[BJ Freeman]

Originally posted by larryat
BJ,

Are you considering interfacing to CANOpen devices, or just using the CAN bus for privately-defined I/O?

-- Larry

I subscribe to Open Source. the Can bus(s) protocols that I have source to, will be availible.

I have tried to follow the CanOPen as close as possible, using an extention to differeniate the protocol the deviates from CanOpen.

Let me also say that I am using Can 2.0 protocols for hardware. However someone can install a Can 1.0 driver if they want to.


what are your interests?

[larryat]

BJ.

From a peek at the websites referenced above, you will pretty much have to conform to whatever the car manufacturer setup. I suspect that even if they do adhere to CANOpen, they will find ways to make each model's implementation somehow incompatible!

Unless I include a CANOpen Joystick or have to conform on the PC side, I'm considering using CAN to communicate with a number of (our own IsoPod-based) devices, since:

1) There is a CAN transceiver on the IsoPod board, and reasonable (but minimal) built-in firmware controller support in the Motorola DSP56F805.
2) CAN provides a guarenteed message delivery timing and prioritization (unless network is completely overloaded or munged).
3) A completely non-conforming implementation can be pretty concise, without much overhead.
4) Appropriate data capacity for the traffic I expect.

I'm concerned that if I go to a CANOpen (even minimally) conforming implementation, I'll blow my time budgets or code size. (or development schedule) TBD.

I'm not (yet?) CANOpen affiliated, but have read all the accessable pdf's.

[BJ Freeman]

My design break down functions, into modules, that require a lot time overhead, into separate ISOPOD. I have a executive for a group of ISOPODs, then That executive talks to other executives above.

Since cost is not a major factor, but backup(redundancy), is, we have gone this route. Currently the complete system uses 35 ISOPOD.

Yes each manufacture has their own Protocols, however their is plenty of documentation, on the web, as to how to interface with them. The ISOPOD converts that to a consistent protocol.

My reason for CanOPEN is not a technical one, as IT is that the European Companies are adopting it.


good luck on you project(s).