Automotive and Embedded Networks

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

CAN-FD Error Frames & XCP query

I am upgrading my PXI LV-RT system ready for CAN-FD, after several years running CAN CCP/XCP happily.  I now have a PXI running LV-RT 2014 SP1 with XNET 17.0.1 & ECUMC 2015, using a PXI-8512 board.  Two issues are giving me trouble now. 

1. With the CAN-FD XCP ECU connected (baud 500k & 2M, ISO), and Vector CANape able to connect on the same bus, XNET bus monitor is showing me almost nothing but error frames.  An occasional CAN-FD frame is registered, but very few.  The Vector hardware is at one end of the cable, ECU at the other, and the PXI somewhere in between.  CANape reports no error frames at all, and is getting good data from the ECU.

Any ideas about how to proceed?  The wiring is exactly the same as for the standard CAN ECUs. 

 

2. Due to the above, I cannot get the LV application to access the ECU yet.  But I cannot see how to specify the CAN-FD baud rate, DLC, or other FD parameters when configuring the ECU communications with the ECU M&C toolkit.  Am I missing something here?  There is very little information about using XCP on a CAN-FD network, so I am open to any suggestions.

 

Thanks all for your help!

0 Kudos
Message 1 of 4
(2,551 Views)

The communications issue sounds very much like the issue described in KB 7K2AMS00.

 

This is a similar post where I posted some screenshots of baud rate settings that are commonly encountered. They could be a good starting point for you.

Jeff L
National Instruments
0 Kudos
Message 2 of 4
(2,506 Views)

Also, the ECUMC toolkit does not currently support CAN FD but it has been included on our feature request list so we are investigating it.

Jeff L
National Instruments
0 Kudos
Message 3 of 4
(2,505 Views)

Jeff,

 

Thanks for your input.  I will look into the sample timing next time I have some time at the rig. 

 

But this is rather academic now in the light of your second point.  I am somewhat dismayed that XCP in not yet supported on CAN FD, despite these being standard interfaces, in existence now for several years.  Looking further at this, I see a request for developing XCP on Flexray that was declined.  While I am not using Flexray yet, this is on my radar as an essential technology to have available.  I had trusted NI to be technology leaders, but it seems that this may not be the case.  It seems that product development is based on how many "votes" a request receives, rather than the strategic or technical merits of the request.  Is NI really running product development like a talent show?

 

Sorry about the rant (I will look for a better forum for that).  Until ECUMC is updated, it seems I can do no more. 

 

Ian

0 Kudos
Message 4 of 4
(2,494 Views)