Skip to content
  • MySensors
  • OpenHardware.io
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo
  1. Home
  2. My Project
  3. CAN bus transport implementation for MYS

CAN bus transport implementation for MYS

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved My Project
35 Posts 12 Posters 13.0k Views 16 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • gohanG Offline
    gohanG Offline
    gohan
    Mod
    wrote on last edited by
    #26

    I understand your concerns, but can bus is made more for industrial purposes. Maybe you need to find a more powerful replacement for the ATmega328

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • ? Offline
      ? Offline
      A Former User
      wrote on last edited by
      #27

      @kimot Thank you very much for your reply. It's sounds great and more I read about bus for IOT more I think Can is the best solution. But still the problem with the data length bother me. The more hack and tricks we have to add to a system the more problem we can have.

      I made a little research on internet about Can and found that there is a new version called CAN FD that is actually compatible with CAN 2 but it can be used at a higher speed between to CAN FD nodes (but that is not really interesting us for our use). The real plus is that you can send data up to 64 bytes. And I think that could be the solution of the problem, no?

      http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/en/MCP2561FD

      K 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • gohanG Offline
        gohanG Offline
        gohan
        Mod
        wrote on last edited by
        #28

        Agricultural vehicles now use ISOBUS (extension of j1939) that can send icons and images to the displays. Maybe you can take a look at it

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • ? A Former User

          @kimot Thank you very much for your reply. It's sounds great and more I read about bus for IOT more I think Can is the best solution. But still the problem with the data length bother me. The more hack and tricks we have to add to a system the more problem we can have.

          I made a little research on internet about Can and found that there is a new version called CAN FD that is actually compatible with CAN 2 but it can be used at a higher speed between to CAN FD nodes (but that is not really interesting us for our use). The real plus is that you can send data up to 64 bytes. And I think that could be the solution of the problem, no?

          http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/en/MCP2561FD

          K Offline
          K Offline
          kimot
          wrote on last edited by kimot
          #29

          @gasuter
          CAN FD looks good, until you start to looking for IO chips.
          MCP2561FD is only CAN bus transceiver ( like MAX485 ) with higher speed ability, then traditional CAN bus drivers.
          It has no logic "on board".
          You need something like MCP2517.
          But try find datasheet, prices etc. for this chip.
          I think, it will be very expensive way for us, like standard CAN several years ago was.

          Nca78N 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • gohanG Offline
            gohanG Offline
            gohan
            Mod
            wrote on last edited by
            #30

            Better performance usually means more expensive 😁. Maybe for the moment we just need to find a good way to make rs485 perform a little better

            wallyllamaW 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • gohanG gohan

              Better performance usually means more expensive 😁. Maybe for the moment we just need to find a good way to make rs485 perform a little better

              wallyllamaW Offline
              wallyllamaW Offline
              wallyllama
              wrote on last edited by
              #31

              @gohan this is exactly why i brought up j1708, it is a hardware spec(can be any software on top), that uses max485 chips, you drive the de line instead of tx and it allows you to "see" collisions on the line. It would need a layer that does retransmits, but i dont see why the mysensors rs485 code clouldnt ride on top of that. There is an id that is utransmitted first that all nodes have to watch for which is duplicated efforst as the mysensors layer has that.

              I see it like this pseudo code:

              All nodes listen for an id,
              if none, then start transmitting,
              watching for dominant bits in between bits that hint someone else is transmitting, if collision back off for random time.
              if no collision transmit full message as normal mysensors message
              Other nodes must listen until message ends then they can start a transmit after random interval.

              The secret is really in tying tx (it looks like) low and control de, re is enables always so you can see other bits. Once a node has the bus, everyone shuts up until it is done. You only decides "who has the floor" and how to know when they relinquish it.

              J1708 is 9600 baud, which may be ok, but ill bet it would work at higher speeds.

              1 Reply Last reply
              1
              • gohanG Offline
                gohanG Offline
                gohan
                Mod
                wrote on last edited by
                #32

                I am not sure if customizing too much that protocol is going to be a successful way. I'm concerned that if you can't get a team of developers working on it and maintain it in the future, people aren't going to use it because the risk of don't having any kind of support will discourage them

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • K kimot

                  @gohan
                  Thanks for your message.
                  All CAN controllers can send max 8 bytes of data, so longer messages must be divided to multiple packets. J1939 works this way too. That is what I do not want. With heavy traffic especially GW must again assemble packets to complete message, but packet of one message will not come one by one. Packets will be coming mixed from different nodes and GW must assemble them in memory to complete message from each node. So you for example has 30 messages in different state of completion. Some of them has received 1 packet and waiting for 2nd , some has 2nd and waiting for 3rd. ....
                  I am concerned that it does not work for ATmega328, and must be used processor with more RAM.

                  D Offline
                  D Offline
                  dukelec
                  wrote on last edited by dukelec
                  #33

                  @kimot
                  Much agree with you, I don't like CAN bus, let's return to RS485 bus, I already create a stand alone RS485 controller chip (CDCTL-Bx) which support arbitration (as same as CAN) and user data in packet is up to 253 bytes, the baud rate is also higher than CAN or CAN FD, and it's much more easy to use than the CAN:
                  https://github.com/dukelec/cdbus_doc (Open Source Project)

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • S Offline
                    S Offline
                    Steph33
                    wrote on last edited by Steph33
                    #34

                    Hi all,
                    I would really be very interested in having CAN bus managed by MySensors.
                    My new house is being built and I already planed to have a RS485 bus running along the house (RJ45 cable with one pair dedicated to RS485 bus and one pair for gnd/+5V). Having done some tests, I realize that I'm facing a lot of collisions and I don't want to explain to my wife that the light does not switch on when she clicks the switch because of a collision ;)
                    So, I'm was looking at solutions based on CAN bus and was even ready to give up with MySensors (although I love mySensors) when I ended up on this thread.
                    @kimot : have you progressed on your implementation ?
                    If so, I'm OK for being your beta-tester, I only need to exchange integers between the nodes and the gateway, no strings so the limitation of the packet size is not an issue for me : 8 bits are sufficient to me.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • K kimot

                      @gasuter
                      CAN FD looks good, until you start to looking for IO chips.
                      MCP2561FD is only CAN bus transceiver ( like MAX485 ) with higher speed ability, then traditional CAN bus drivers.
                      It has no logic "on board".
                      You need something like MCP2517.
                      But try find datasheet, prices etc. for this chip.
                      I think, it will be very expensive way for us, like standard CAN several years ago was.

                      Nca78N Offline
                      Nca78N Offline
                      Nca78
                      Hardware Contributor
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #35

                      @kimot said in CAN bus transport implementation for MYS:

                      @gasuter
                      CAN FD looks good, until you start to looking for IO chips.
                      MCP2561FD is only CAN bus transceiver ( like MAX485 ) with higher speed ability, then traditional CAN bus drivers.
                      It has no logic "on board".
                      You need something like MCP2517.
                      But try find datasheet, prices etc. for this chip.
                      I think, it will be very expensive way for us, like standard CAN several years ago was.

                      MCP2517 has been released a few months ago and is only around 2$.
                      http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/20005688A.pdf

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      17

                      Online

                      11.7k

                      Users

                      11.2k

                      Topics

                      113.0k

                      Posts


                      Copyright 2019 TBD   |   Forum Guidelines   |   Privacy Policy   |   Terms of Service
                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • MySensors
                      • OpenHardware.io
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular