Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Automated Machine Identification #112

Open
aaron97neu opened this issue Jan 22, 2021 · 8 comments
Open

Automated Machine Identification #112

aaron97neu opened this issue Jan 22, 2021 · 8 comments
Labels
discussion Discussion issue about a new feature enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@aaron97neu
Copy link
Member

We should be able to identify the machine that the ISOBlue is on, likely with the address claiming CAN sequence at machine startup. This will decrease errors from having to manually enter what machine a given ISOBlue is on

Suggested by @aultac on 1/22/21 meeting, but has been kicked around for a while

Potential roadblocks:

  • Do we start up fast enough to catch these messages? If not can we query for them?
  • Can we reliably associate CAN address claiming with a human readable and unique machine name?
@aaron97neu aaron97neu added enhancement New feature or request discussion Discussion issue about a new feature labels Jan 22, 2021
@facastiblancor
Copy link
Collaborator

I do not think ISOBlue starts fast enough to catch those messages. According to https://copperhilltech.com/blog/sae-j1939-address-claim-procedure-sae-j193981-network-management/, the address claim procedure starts after the machine's POST. For this to be successful, ISOBlue would need to be ready to log before turning on the machine, which is extremely hard (if not impossible) to determine. It might make more sense to query this data, and it is possible sending the request address claim message on the bus, but this would make ISOBlue an active listener, opening new challenges and security issues. Experience would be best to tell if these concerns are actually a big deal.

@aultac
Copy link
Member

aultac commented Jan 22, 2021 via email

@abalmos
Copy link
Member

abalmos commented Jan 22, 2021

There is a chance that we do see them when IB is turned on by wake-on-can. I assume the CAN hardware captures everything, its just a question of if Linux/SocketCAN pulls from that hardware before it's internal buffers are full. There is a USB in the middle, but given wake on CAN works over it, the USB systems must stay active during suspend.

We should just check. I don't know the PGN, but I think this is as simple as checking for the existence of a PGN, at least at first.

@aultac
Copy link
Member

aultac commented Jan 22, 2021 via email

@aaron97neu
Copy link
Member Author

Fabio and I discussed this briefly in person yesterday

We came to the conclusion that if this data (PGN 55240?) is queryable the simpler solution would be to not worry about catching these messages in the beginning and query for them once we get around to booting up. This would also work for machines that do not have power on the isobus plug while the machine is off.

We could not find an evidence saying this is or is not possible but we are planning on experimenting with it this week with skidsteer to see if it would work.

@aultac
Copy link
Member

aultac commented Jan 23, 2021 via email

@aaron97neu
Copy link
Member Author

@facastiblancor had checked one of the Deer combines and didn't see it. Not sure if he has gotten around to checking any other machines.

@aultac
Copy link
Member

aultac commented Jan 25, 2021 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
discussion Discussion issue about a new feature enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants