CM11A getting stuck
Mike Pritchard
Has anyone experienced problems with the CM11A getting stuck so that it
won't communicate?
I haven't been working with the serial connection for about a month -
got it configured as well as I could and then left it alone. Today I
wanted to make a change and it wouldn't communicate. I got to the point
of thinking that it was something I'd changed on this computer so moved
it to another and reinstalled - no luck. Took out the batteries and
removed from power and reconnected. No immediate success, but then I
left it disconnected for a while and it worked. Put it back on the
first computer and it worked again.
Is this common?
Thanks
Mike
--
__________________________________________
Mike Pritchard, Phone 503-292-1025, Fax 503-292-1152
5 Circles Internet Services - Internet Customer Support
mi...@5circles.com www.5circles.com
Walt
Mike Pritchard wrote:
>
> Has anyone experienced problems with the CM11A getting stuck so that it
> won't communicate?
>
> I haven't been working with the serial connection for about a month -
> got it configured as well as I could and then left it alone. Today I
> wanted to make a change and it wouldn't communicate. I got to the point
> of thinking that it was something I'd changed on this computer so moved
> it to another and reinstalled - no luck. Took out the batteries and
> removed from power and reconnected. No immediate success, but then I
> left it disconnected for a while and it worked. Put it back on the
> first computer and it worked again.
>
> Is this common?
> Thanks
> Mike
It is rare, but if you happen to have a PC on which it occurs, then
you will see it.
Are you running with the original software which came with the CM11A?
Or are you using the latest from their Web Site? X10 has done a lot
since the software was released to fix this problem and they have
substantially reduced the occurances (but not completely eliminated
them unfortunately). I know they are still working on it.
For me, when this happens, if I send out a manual X10 command from
a regular controller, the CM11A will out of its "stuck" mode when
it transfers the X10 command seen on the power line up to the PC.
You might want to try this next time and see if it works for you.
Good luck!
Walt
Mike Pritchard
Walt wrote:
> Mike Pritchard wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone experienced problems with the CM11A getting stuck so that it
> > won't communicate?
> >
>
> you will see it.
the problem is fairly common, and that it not particularly related to
the PC - but to the CM11A itself as I suspected.
>
> Are you running with the original software which came with the CM11A?
> Or are you using the latest from their Web Site? X10 has done a lot
> since the software was released to fix this problem and they have
> substantially reduced the occurances (but not completely eliminated
> them unfortunately). I know they are still working on it.
I'm using the latest Beta software. It is good to know that X10 is
still working on the problems, but if they are down in the CM11A
firmware there is probably only a limited amount that can be done by the
PC software.
Thanks Walt
Mike
> For me, when this happens, if I send out a manual X10 command from
> a regular controller, the CM11A will out of its "stuck" mode when
> it transfers the X10 command seen on the power line up to the PC.
> You might want to try this next time and see if it works for you.
This hasn't worked for me, but it sounds like you have the controller
and software set up for continual monitoring - I'm not doing this.
wal...@plh.af.mil
In article <349E63...@Early.com>,
Wa...@Early.com wrote:
>
> Mike Pritchard wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone experienced problems with the CM11A getting stuck so that it
> >
I've had similar problems. The communications interface loads
successfully, but is then unable to communicate with the CM11A. Manually
running the communication test program fails. If I then activate an on
or off command from the control window, the command is transmitted and
commands the module. Then the comm test program works as well. Flaky to
say the least. I think I will go to the X-10 web site and get the latest
version of the software.
Ken
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Dave Meyer & Raleigh Brown
Mike Pritchard wrote:
> Has anyone experienced problems with the CM11A getting stuck so that
> it
> won't communicate?
>
> I haven't been working with the serial connection for about a month -
> got it configured as well as I could and then left it alone. Today I
> wanted to make a change and it wouldn't communicate. I got to the
> point
> of thinking that it was something I'd changed on this computer so
> moved
> it to another and reinstalled - no luck. Took out the batteries and
> removed from power and reconnected. No immediate success, but then I
> left it disconnected for a while and it worked. Put it back on the
> first computer and it worked again.
>
> Is this common?
> Thanks
> Mike
Mike,
I had the same problem when I first started with the Activehome
system. The tech at X-10 told me to plug an X-10 signal generating
device (ie the RR501) into the CM11A and to do a few commands. That
worked for me. I have left the RR501 plugged in since with out any
problems. (at least with the software. I have an old house with munged
wiring done over 40 years of "upgrading")
Good luck!
Dave
--
LEGAL WARNING
Any person/company/organization that sends me any unwanted (which
includes
any unsolicited/commercial/junk email as well) email WILL be CHARGED a
$500 (US Currency) email deleting fee.
DO NOT send unsolicited advertisements.
DO NOT add my email address(es) to your list(s) w/o my EXPRESSED
consent.
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec. 227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,
whichever is greater, for each violation."
Ingo Pakleppa
There are *at least* two individual ways of hanging the CM11A (it's not the
PC). One, the more common, is resolved, as some people already suggested by
simply sending a command to the CM11A through the power line. The other one,
unfortunately, is *caused* by sending a command on the power line while the
computer also tries to send something - a collision. Against that, the only
remedy I found so far is to unplug the CM11A, take out the batteries, and
leave it out for about 10 minutes. This hasn't happened very often with the
original Activehome software, but occurred very frequently with some
third-party software that I'm using.
Ingo
Mike Pritchard wrote:
> Has anyone experienced problems with the CM11A getting stuck so that it
> won't communicate?
>
> I haven't been working with the serial connection for about a month -
> got it configured as well as I could and then left it alone. Today I
> wanted to make a change and it wouldn't communicate. I got to the point
> of thinking that it was something I'd changed on this computer so moved
> it to another and reinstalled - no luck. Took out the batteries and
> removed from power and reconnected. No immediate success, but then I
> left it disconnected for a while and it worked. Put it back on the
> first computer and it worked again.
>
> Is this common?
> Thanks
> Mike
Kevin
I had the same problem here. Try this:
In Win95;
Set the com port under :
Settings;
Control Panel;
System;
Ports;
to 4800, 8-n-1;
Set flow control to None;
turn the FIFO on;
Most importantly in Activehome:
Config;
Com Settings;
check Data Reflections to On. (MOST IMPORTANT STEP!!!)
If you can't do it here, hit CTRL-C and under COM-SETTINGS, do it there.
I had the same problems and this DEFFINITELY took care of the problem. I also have
Com Mode set to BURST in Activehome.
Been there done that soooo many times..if I had a nickle for each time I had to screw
with it...I would OWN X10 and oyu would all be a lot happier!
****remove cyber1 to reply****]
---
Mark Toomey wrote:
> wal...@plh.af.mil wrote:
> : In article <349E63...@Early.com>,
> : Wa...@Early.com wrote:
> : >
> : > Mike Pritchard wrote:
> : > >
> : > > Has anyone experienced problems with the CM11A getting stuck so that it
> : > > won't communicate? .....
> : > >
> :
> : I've had similar problems. The communications interface loads
> : successfully, but is then unable to communicate with the CM11A. Manually
> : running the communication test program fails. If I then activate an on
> : or off command from the control window, the command is transmitted and
> : commands the module. Then the comm test program works as well. Flaky to
> : say the least. I think I will go to the X-10 web site and get the latest
> : version of the software.
> :
> : Ken
> :
> : -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> : http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
> I have had this problem from the first day I started using the CM11A and it
> has not improved. I've switched PCs, wall outlets, unplugged the CM11A,
> taken out the batteries, left the PC up 'n' running to see if it would
> suddenly work as some have suggested, but no worky!
>
> I am, to say the least, extremely pissed at ActiveHome considering I've been
> using the CP290 for a *long* time with no problems, then I get a Pentium
> and install Win95 on it only to find you can't run a CP290 on a Win95
> Pentium.
>
> If any of those folks are checking this newsgroup *PAY ATTENTION, WE ARE NOT
> SATISFIED CUSTOMERS* I am a major wirehead and I don't mind if they give me
> a controller that will work with Mac, Win95, OS/2 or Linux - just so I can
> hookup my controller to one of them and leave it runing!!
>
> <*/rant off */>
Mark Toomey
Dave Houston
>
>I am, to say the least, extremely pissed at ActiveHome considering I've been
>using the CP290 for a *long* time with no problems, then I get a Pentium
>and install Win95 on it only to find you can't run a CP290 on a Win95
>Pentium.
>
>If any of those folks are checking this newsgroup *PAY ATTENTION, WE ARE NOT
>SATISFIED CUSTOMERS* I am a major wirehead and I don't mind if they give me
>a controller that will work with Mac, Win95, OS/2 or Linux - just so I can
>hookup my controller to one of them and leave it runing!!
>
><*/rant off */>
I've had no problems running a CP290 on a Win95 with a Cyrix 6x86 P200+.
What's the problem with yours?
Steve Winograd
> > <snip> then I get a Pentium
> >and install Win95 on it only to find you can't run a CP290 on a
Win95
> >Pentium.
> I've had no problems running a CP290 on a Win95 with a Cyrix 6x86
P200+.
> What's the problem with yours?
And my CP-290 works fine on an IBM Aptiva with 200MHZ Pentium using the
Smart-10 control program from Sympathetic Software
(http://users.deltanet.com/~sbillard/smart10.htm).
Best Wishes,
Steve
Please change ".not" to ".net" in e-mail address to reply.
L. M. Rappaport
Kevin <ksc...@cyber1owt.com> wrote (with possible editing):
>I had the same problem here. Try this:
>
>In Win95;
>Set the com port under :
>Settings;
>Control Panel;
>System;
>Ports;
>to 4800, 8-n-1;
>Set flow control to None;
>turn the FIFO on;
>
>Most importantly in Activehome:
>Config;
>Com Settings;
>check Data Reflections to On. (MOST IMPORTANT STEP!!!)
Where do you see this? Which version of Activehome are you using?
(click on help, about)
>If you can't do it here, hit CTRL-C and under COM-SETTINGS, do it there.
Huh? That doesn't change anything here.
>I had the same problems and this DEFFINITELY took care of the problem. I also have
>Com Mode set to BURST in Activehome.
Is that ok with downloaded macros?
>Been there done that soooo many times..if I had a nickle for each time I had to screw
>with it...I would OWN X10 and oyu would all be a lot happier!
Amen. Still screwing with it here!
Thanks for the help!
Larry
--
ra...@lmr.com
Bill Pearce
The CM11 getting stuck is a problem with the CM11. They will work fine
for a while and then they will do stupid things like only allow incoming
traffic. And then for no reason they will start to function again.
This is true if you are running Win 95, Win 3.1, or the Mac OS.
They are just a flakey unit!
In article <34a7238b...@nntp.iglou.com>, dhou...@iglou.com wrote:
> ma...@spock.fcs.uga.edu (Mark Toomey) wrote:
> For the past few days, I've been writing code to interface with the CP290,
> CM11A and LynX-10 controllers to our existing software product (for the
> disabled). All three controllers work fine on my Pentium class machine.
--
Bill Pearce
Terill Enterprises Ltd.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
terill@**NOSPAM**cadvision.com
Mark Toomey
Steve Winograd (wino...@ibm.not) wrote:
: > > <snip> then I get a Pentium
: > >and install Win95 on it only to find you can't run a CP290 on a
: Win95
: > >Pentium.
:
: > I've had no problems running a CP290 on a Win95 with a Cyrix 6x86
: P200+.
: > What's the problem with yours?
:
: And my CP-290 works fine on an IBM Aptiva with 200MHZ Pentium using the
: Smart-10 control program from Sympathetic Software
: (http://users.deltanet.com/~sbillard/smart10.htm).
All the more power to y'all, but from the ActiveHome FAQ, which pointed out
after I spent a day trying to get my cp290 to work - This dog can't fetch.
Having three CP290's I would love to have them work and not deal with the
CM11A (although the macros and Logs are a nice feature).
I have a linux server which I'm going to try and setup for the CP290 if I
can't get my desktop box to fly.
Dave Houston
ma...@spock.fcs.uga.edu (Mark Toomey) wrote:
>Steve Winograd (wino...@ibm.not) wrote:
>: > > <snip> then I get a Pentium
>: > >and install Win95 on it only to find you can't run a CP290 on a
>: Win95
>: > >Pentium.
>:
>: > I've had no problems running a CP290 on a Win95 with a Cyrix 6x86
>: P200+.
>: > What's the problem with yours?
>:
>: And my CP-290 works fine on an IBM Aptiva with 200MHZ Pentium using the
>: Smart-10 control program from Sympathetic Software
>: (http://users.deltanet.com/~sbillard/smart10.htm).
>
>All the more power to y'all, but from the ActiveHome FAQ, which pointed out
>after I spent a day trying to get my cp290 to work - This dog can't fetch.
>Having three CP290's I would love to have them work and not deal with the
>CM11A (although the macros and Logs are a nice feature).
Which FAQ are you talking about? I can find nothing on this subject in the
FAQ at www.activehome.com
For the past few days, I've been writing code to interface with the CP290,
CM11A and LynX-10 controllers to our existing software product (for the
disabled). All three controllers work fine on my Pentium class machine.
TwinCreeks
I also have had problems running a CP290 on a 233 mh Compaq 4824. I found in
the X-10 web site a one line comment that the CP290 will not work on P100
computers. I assume that means a Pentium 100mh and above. There was no other
information. (It worked just fine on a 166mh Compaq 4712.
In DOS mode, I get an error mesage "Timed out. Check your cables." when
attempting to download commands to the CP290. I have changed all the MODE
parameters for COM1 and turned off and on the various buffers, but still get
the problem. However, about 1 in 3 downlaod tries seems to works, so I have
put up with the problem for several months
Today, I installed a CK11A with the upgraded X10 software downloaded form the
X10 site. I have some really interestering problems now with the X10 software
conflicting with the phone answering software. X10 is on COM1, modem on COM2.
See other post for problems.
TwinCreeks
I just installed one on a Compaq 4824 to replace a CP290 using the X10 software
version 1.2d. (See related post.) Buggy! It works fine in thecommunications
off mode.
But it seems that the X10 software conficts with the Compaq Phone Center
software in the communications on mode. The modem is on COM2 and X10 is on
COM1. I checked the IRQs and DMAs and there are no confilcts. Windows 95
locks up and I have to do a cold boot with the off on switch.
I suspect it is as much of a problem with the X10 software as it is with both
the Compaq hardware and software. (I have now had three Compaq machines, and I
have lost respect for their design, hardware quality control, and technical
support. The first machine was fantastic, the second less so--and this one
junky. But enough of that.) Compaq builds its own modems that are not fully
compatable, and then provides software with known bugs.
Anyway, I would appreciate any suggestions.
By the way what is the difference between CM11A and CK11A. I see references to
both in my documentation?
TwinCreeks
>All the more power to y'all, but from the ActiveHome FAQ, which pointed out
>after I spent a day trying to get my cp290 to work - This dog can't fetch.
>Having three CP290's I would love to have them work and not deal with the
>CM11A (although the macros and Logs are a nice feature).
>
>can't get my desktop box to fly.
>
I agree. The CP290 meets my needs just fine (but I do like the macro
capability).. I am about ready to invest in a used 36 or 486 machine just for
the CP290s.
Sometimes simple is better, folks.
Steve Winograd
>I agree. The CP290 meets my needs just fine (but I do like the macro
>capability).. I am about ready to invest in a used 36 or 486 machine
>just for the CP290s.
>
>Sometimes simple is better, folks.
I second the motion. My CP290 has had none of the problems I've had
with the newer units. The ActiveHome and IBM Home Director CM11A
software is very flashy looking but maddeningly complicated. You have
to go through several screens to do even the simplest operation, like
changing or adding a scheduled event. I prefer the Smart-10 CP290
program, where I can see everything in one screen.
Quentin J. Lewis
TwinCreeks wrote:
>
> I also have had problems running a CP290 on a 233 mh Compaq 4824. I found in
> the X-10 web site a one line comment that the CP290 will not work on P100
> computers. I assume that means a Pentium 100mh and above. There was no other
> information. (It worked just fine on a 166mh Compaq 4712.
>
I have a Pentium 166, and my CP290 works fine for me.
-Quentin
Ingo Pakleppa
The CM11A is the unit itself. The CK11A is the starter kit, with a CM11A, a lamp
module, a universal remote, an RR501 and a keychain remote.
TwinCreeks
>
>I have a Pentium 166, and my CP290 works fine for me.
>
before I upgraded to a 233mh 4824. Any ideas why, or what can be done to fix
the problem??
Jeffrey Lyons
I am convinced that data is "leaking" from other Com ports to corrupt the
CM11 resulting in date changes, and sometimes hung communications. I know
this sounds idiotic but... If you are using a modem on your other Com port..
try not using it for a day or two and see if the module still hangs up. I
think you will find it works fine. I noticed that while using my modem I
would see occational "traffic" to the CM11 by watching the communication
Icon on the toolbar (part of ActiveHome). This traffic was not attributable
to X10 activity from the computer or other X10 devices. I don't know why it
does this but I am more convinced than ever that it is not the CM11 but the
computer sending spurrious data to the module, corrupting it. I even
returned my CM11 and am now using a HomeLinc unit. It too can get corrupted
or lose communication if I use the modem.
Jeffrey Lyons.
Bill Pearce wrote in message ...
>
>The CM11 getting stuck is a problem with the CM11. They will work fine
>for a while and then they will do stupid things like only allow incoming
>traffic. And then for no reason they will start to function again.
>
>This is true if you are running Win 95, Win 3.1, or the Mac OS.
>
>They are just a flakey unit!
>
>In article <34a7238b...@nntp.iglou.com>, dhou...@iglou.com wrote:
>
>> ma...@spock.fcs.uga.edu (Mark Toomey) wrote:
>> For the past few days, I've been writing code to interface with the
CP290,
>> CM11A and LynX-10 controllers to our existing software product (for the
>> disabled). All three controllers work fine on my Pentium class machine.
>
Jeffrey Lyons
CLearly if everyone was seeing this problem, all Hell would be breaking
loose on this newsgroup. I don't know what combination of settings might
bring this problem out, but I am noticing alot of messages on the NG that
might be the same problem. I have checked my Com port settings over and
over. I am a professional computer person and have eliminated all of the
obvious conflict issues (not to say I am not capable of missing something).
If you watch the communications Icon while connecting to Dial up Networking,
you may notice the activity I am seeing. It is possible that WinFax will
not create this problem. I have only noticed it when using DUN. I have
WinFax but don't get any faxes, and havn't sent any sinse getting this
equipment. I am glad you are not having a problem. I wonder if it may be
due to updated MODEMV drivers, or something else that we don't have in
common on our systems?
Jeffrey Lyons
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Baldridge <coral...@pobox.com>
To: Jeffrey Lyons <lyo...@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Friday, 1998 January, 02 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: CM11A, what's with this...
I've had an Active Home installed on the pc that answers the phones
for 19 months or so. I was a beta tester and have had many problems
with the software but the modem is used several times a day, answering
phones with Winfax and dialing out with Windows 95 dial up networking
and I've never seen any conflicts between the com ports. Are you sure
your ports are properly configured? I mainly use an Enerlogic for
home automation control and it's always been on a pc with a modem and
the modems are heavily used and I've never seen any problem with
Windows 3.1, WFWG 3.11 or Windows 95.
Jeffrey Lyons wrote in message <68jhnk$c...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
L. M. Rappaport
"Jeffrey Lyons" <lyo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote (with possible
editing):
>I am convinced that data is "leaking" from other Com ports to corrupt the
>CM11 resulting in date changes, and sometimes hung communications. I know
>this sounds idiotic but... If you are using a modem on your other Com port..
>try not using it for a day or two and see if the module still hangs up. I
>think you will find it works fine. I noticed that while using my modem I
>would see occational "traffic" to the CM11 by watching the communication
>Icon on the toolbar (part of ActiveHome). This traffic was not attributable
>to X10 activity from the computer or other X10 devices. I don't know why it
>does this but I am more convinced than ever that it is not the CM11 but the
>computer sending spurrious data to the module, corrupting it. I even
>returned my CM11 and am now using a HomeLinc unit. It too can get corrupted
>or lose communication if I use the modem.
Jeffrey,
I have seen the CM11 hang on two different systems - Win95 and Win
NT (v4 w/sp3) and on several different computers. Sometimes
unplugging it and removing the batteries will fix it, sometimes
plugging the RF transmitter into the outlet and sending a few commands
will clear it, but I doubt it's the computer, or even if it is, how
come other serial devices aren't bothered by it? I think the device
is buggy and unreliable by just about any definition. That's why I
can't recommend it or any X-10 devices for anything serious.
Larry
--
ra...@lmr.com
Jeff Keyser
Jeffrey Lyons wrote:
>
> I am convinced that data is "leaking" from other Com ports to corrupt the
> CM11 resulting in date changes, and sometimes hung communications. I know
> this sounds idiotic but... If you are using a modem on your other Com port..
> try not using it for a day or two and see if the module still hangs up. I
> think you will find it works fine. I noticed that while using my modem I
> would see occational "traffic" to the CM11 by watching the communication
> Icon on the toolbar (part of ActiveHome). This traffic was not attributable
> to X10 activity from the computer or other X10 devices. I don't know why it
> does this but I am more convinced than ever that it is not the CM11 but the
> computer sending spurrious data to the module, corrupting it. I even
> returned my CM11 and am now using a HomeLinc unit. It too can get corrupted
> or lose communication if I use the modem.
If using two COM ports simultaneously is causing you trouble, make sure
that they do not use the same IRQ. By defualt, both COM1 and COM3 use
IRQ 4, and both COM2 and COM4 use IRQ 3. If you try to use COM1 and
COM3 (with their default settings) at the same time, they will conflict
with each other.
--
Jeffrey A. Keyser
key...@voicenet.com
Michael D. Federchuk
In article <68jl35$7...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Jeffrey Lyons" <lyo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>CLearly if everyone was seeing this problem, all Hell would be breaking
>loose on this newsgroup. I don't know what combination of settings might
>bring this problem out, but I am noticing alot of messages on the NG that
>might be the same problem. I have checked my Com port settings over and
>over. I am a professional computer person and have eliminated all of the
>obvious conflict issues (not to say I am not capable of missing something).
>If you watch the communications Icon while connecting to Dial up Networking,
>you may notice the activity I am seeing. It is possible that WinFax will
>not create this problem. I have only noticed it when using DUN. I have
>WinFax but don't get any faxes, and havn't sent any sinse getting this
>equipment. I am glad you are not having a problem. I wonder if it may be
>due to updated MODEMV drivers, or something else that we don't have in
>common on our systems?
>
Hi Jeffrey,
I'm experiencing the same problem too. I run a Compaq Deskpro 66M and
win95/sp1. With my Courier x2 external and DUN installed, HomeDirector
and the IBM version of the cm11a work intermittently or not at all;
regardless of comm port used. If I uninstall the modem and remove DUN,
HomeDirector becomes stable. There is something going on at the OS
level with these two products. They both work on the hardware platform;
independently of each other.
I've not been able to find patches or realtime support for HD, so I am
considering changing over to the AH version of the software.
Mike
Dan Lanciani
| I have seen the CM11 hang on two different systems - Win95 and Win
|NT (v4 w/sp3) and on several different computers. Sometimes
|unplugging it and removing the batteries will fix it, sometimes
|plugging the RF transmitter into the outlet and sending a few commands
|will clear it, but I doubt it's the computer, or even if it is, how
|come other serial devices aren't bothered by it? I think the device
|is buggy and unreliable by just about any definition. That's why I
|can't recommend it or any X-10 devices for anything serious.
There is definitely at least one lockup bug in the CM11a that has
nothing to do with the host computer. If the CM11a receives the
beginning of an extended data sequence (or noise or a corrupted
command that looks like such) it will wait forever for the expected
number of data bytes. This problem is 100% reproduceable and is
the hang that can be cleared by sending other commands on the
line. (The commands are taken as the remainder of the extended
data sequence.)
I haven't seen any of the other bugs, which leads me to believe that
they reside in the ActiveHome host software. (I use my own software.)
Of course, I don't keep batteries in the unit to begin with...
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Jean-François Gallant
I'm new to home automation and just bought the CK11 kit somebody
mentionned earlier. Sure enough, I've been experiencing the
"stuck CM11A" problem.
What Jeff proposes (see below) seems very reasonable. Let me
describe my configuration:
- Pentium with Win95
- Mouse on COM1 (IRQ4)
- Modem on COM2 (IRQ3)
- CM11 on COM3 (IRQ4)
Because the default configuration for COM1 and COM3 is to
share IRQ4, I always assumed that you can actually use both
simultaneously. Any good COM driver should simply poll COM1
and COM3 to see which raised IRQ4 when it goes up. And if
incoming data is available on both ports, retrieve from both and
dispatch to the right application.
Anyway, the behavior I have is this: if I send a command from
ActiveHome, X10COMM eventually times out and reports a
connection problem. If I move the mouse as the command is
being sent, everything works just fine (!!!). My assumption
at this point is that it is Win95's COM driver that's buggy (well,
according to my definition of what it should do), and
on receiving IRQ4, will only check COM1 for incoming data.
If COM1 has data, then it retrieves the data from COM1 and
then also polls COM3.
Jeff Keyser wrote in message <34AE62...@voicenet.com>...
L. M. Rappaport
d...@endor.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) wrote (with possible editing):
>There is definitely at least one lockup bug in the CM11a that has
>nothing to do with the host computer. If the CM11a receives the
>beginning of an extended data sequence (or noise or a corrupted
>command that looks like such) it will wait forever for the expected
>number of data bytes. This problem is 100% reproduceable and is
>the hang that can be cleared by sending other commands on the
>line. (The commands are taken as the remainder of the extended
>data sequence.)
>
>I haven't seen any of the other bugs, which leads me to believe that
>they reside in the ActiveHome host software. (I use my own software.)
>Of course, I don't keep batteries in the unit to begin with...
>
> Dan Lanciani
> ddl@danlan.*com
Dan,
Nice work - I think you nailed it! I just reproduced your scenario
and it causes the same hang.
Now to reverse engineer the firmware and see if there is room for a
way around it...
Larry
--
ra...@lmr.com
Neil Cherry
On Sun, 04 Jan 1998 17:26:17 GMT, L. M. Rappaport <ra...@lmr.com> wrote:
>d...@endor.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) wrote (with possible editing):
> Nice work - I think you nailed it! I just reproduced your scenario
>and it causes the same hang.
>
> Now to reverse engineer the firmware and see if there is room for a
>way around it...
The CM11 uses a 16C58A processor by Microchip, I don't know what speed
it's being clocked at yet. The Microchip 16C58A is a 12 bit
processor, with 2K of ROM, 73 bytes of RAM, a 2 level hardware stack,
8 bit timer, watchdog timer and a power saving sleep mode. X10 (or
whoever wrote the origianl code) probably set the code protect bit so
reading the CPU would most likely produce random garbage. This
doesn't mean you can't try, there are ways around this.
What might be a better idea would be to use a better processor such as
a 16C62 or 63. They have more RAM/ROM and have a built in Serial and
several timers, 8 level stack, and more interrupt sources (that's
important). This processor has more pins which means you would need an
adapter. There may be other processor but I have really checked
yet. Right now it's an idea that simmering. I've got other projects on
the front burner now. I also need to get a schematic together first.
--
Neil Cherry
If you need to contact me via email please use this email address to
respond: Lnch...@worldnet.att.net
(DELETE the L before my name)
L. M. Rappaport
n...@dmc.uucp (Neil Cherry) wrote (with possible editing):
>On Sun, 04 Jan 1998 17:26:17 GMT, L. M. Rappaport <ra...@lmr.com> wrote:
>>d...@endor.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) wrote (with possible editing):
>
>> Nice work - I think you nailed it! I just reproduced your scenario
>>and it causes the same hang.
>>
>> Now to reverse engineer the firmware and see if there is room for a
>>way around it...
>
>The CM11 uses a 16C58A processor by Microchip, I don't know what speed
>it's being clocked at yet. The Microchip 16C58A is a 12 bit
>processor, with 2K of ROM, 73 bytes of RAM, a 2 level hardware stack,
>8 bit timer, watchdog timer and a power saving sleep mode. X10 (or
>whoever wrote the origianl code) probably set the code protect bit so
>reading the CPU would most likely produce random garbage. This
>doesn't mean you can't try, there are ways around this.
I didn't know there was a way around the code protect bit. IAC, I
don't know how.
>What might be a better idea would be to use a better processor such as
>a 16C62 or 63. They have more RAM/ROM and have a built in Serial and
>several timers, 8 level stack, and more interrupt sources (that's
>important). This processor has more pins which means you would need an
>adapter. There may be other processor but I have really checked
>yet. Right now it's an idea that simmering. I've got other projects on
>the front burner now. I also need to get a schematic together first.
I'm tied up as well with a basic stamp II project which has many
similarities. It's a radio-controlled X-10 system which operates on
the amateur radio 440 Mhz band and provides voice feedback. I don't
have a programmer for the 16c62, or 3, but will keep it in mind. I
may just see if I can expand my current project to handle macros. I
don't care about monitoring codes over the power line, so that could
easily become a non-issue.
Larry
--
ra...@lmr.com
David A. Enete
On 28 Dec 1997, Mark Toomey wrote:
> If any of those folks are checking this newsgroup *PAY ATTENTION, WE ARE NOT
> SATISFIED CUSTOMERS* I am a major wirehead and I don't mind if they give me
> a controller that will work with Mac, Win95, OS/2 or Linux - just so I can
> hookup my controller to one of them and leave it runing!!
Until a recent motherboard problem came up, I was using the cm11a with
Linux via Daniel Suthers' "heyu" software. The longest time that I left
it running without a shutdown or reboot was about 2 weeks. I didn't have
any communications loss to the interface during those 2 weeks.
I agree about the problems with the Win95 software from X10. It is not a
good package, but I will still use it (when I pick up a new motherboard)
for downloading macros to the cm11a.
If you want to try out the "heyu" software (as I know you are a Linux
user), it can be found at "http://cm11.tanj.com/~dbs/".
Big thanks to Daniel Suthers!
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Enete den...@coe.uga.edu
Computer Lab Management http://www.coe.uga.edu/~denete/
Office for Information Technology phone: (706) 542-8007
University of Georgia fax: (706) 542-2321
Neil Cherry
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998 13:08:58 -0500, David A. Enete <den...@coe.uga.edu> wrote:
>On 28 Dec 1997, Mark Toomey wrote:
>> If any of those folks are checking this newsgroup *PAY ATTENTION, WE ARE NOT
>> SATISFIED CUSTOMERS* I am a major wirehead and I don't mind if they give me
>> a controller that will work with Mac, Win95, OS/2 or Linux - just so I can
>> hookup my controller to one of them and leave it runing!!
>
>Until a recent motherboard problem came up, I was using the cm11a with
>Linux via Daniel Suthers' "heyu" software. The longest time that I left
>it running without a shutdown or reboot was about 2 weeks. I didn't have
>any communications loss to the interface during those 2 weeks.
>
>I agree about the problems with the Win95 software from X10. It is not a
>good package, but I will still use it (when I pick up a new motherboard)
>for downloading macros to the cm11a.
>
>If you want to try out the "heyu" software (as I know you are a Linux
>user), it can be found at "http://cm11.tanj.com/~dbs/".
>
>Big thanks to Daniel Suthers!
I've used Dan Suthers' cm11/x10/heyu software and the CM11 has stayed
up for many weeks. But the power fails I sometimes have to pull the
CM11 out of the socket, remove the batteries and put it back together.
Then send an X10 command via an RF module to get it going. Most times
it is just the x10 command via the RF to fix it.
I may have a simplier fix, by hooking up a reset button to the 16C58A
the CPU can be reset. Whether this can fix the problem or not is
another question but I do now have 2 CM11A's (and a CP290 on the
way). So I can modify the older one and force a failure.
Neil Cherry
way). So I can modify the older one and force a failure. But I am
very unhappy that I have to fix the problem. The original manufacturer
is the one who should fix the problem. I shouldn't have to resort to
hack a fix or attempting to reverse engineer their code to resolve a
problem!
Sigurd P. Crossland
Has anyone with a 'stuck' CM11A tried running the debug utility that ships
with the ActiveHome? You should find an executable named "X10dbg.exe" on
the CD in the folder Utils\Drivers. If you have difficulty deciphering the
output, perhaps you could post it to the group and let us assist.
Jean-François Gallant <jf...@cam.org> wrote in article
<68s7ip$m...@tandem.CAM.ORG>...
> I'm new to home automation and just bought the CK11 kit somebody
> mentionned earlier. Sure enough, I've been experiencing the
> "stuck CM11A" problem.
>
> What Jeff proposes (see below) seems very reasonable. Let me
> describe my configuration:
> - Pentium with Win95
> - Mouse on COM1 (IRQ4)
> - Modem on COM2 (IRQ3)
> - CM11 on COM3 (IRQ4)
>
> Because the default configuration for COM1 and COM3 is to
> share IRQ4, I always assumed that you can actually use both
> simultaneously. Any good COM driver should simply poll COM1
> and COM3 to see which raised IRQ4 when it goes up. And if
> incoming data is available on both ports, retrieve from both and
> dispatch to the right application.
Your assumption regarding serial port usage should be correct; the original
IBM PC specification allows overloading IRQs and depends on the driver to
properly chain the subroutine calls. However, all software is not created
equal and vendors have a habit of ignoring or evolving reference specs. A
good driver could and should poll the hardware. Unless you want to
experiment or have access to the driver source code you are probably better
off to ensure that only a single device gets assigned to each IRQ.
>
> Anyway, the behavior I have is this: if I send a command from
> ActiveHome, X10COMM eventually times out and reports a
> connection problem. If I move the mouse as the command is
> being sent, everything works just fine (!!!). My assumption
> at this point is that it is Win95's COM driver that's buggy (well,
> according to my definition of what it should do), and
> on receiving IRQ4, will only check COM1 for incoming data.
> If COM1 has data, then it retrieves the data from COM1 and
> then also polls COM3.
With a serial mouse that is assigned to COM1 you are almost certainly
running into an IRQ conflict. Usually there is nothing to prevent you from
assigning each of the COM ports there own IRQ, providing you have the
resources available.
Take care.
- Sig
Sylvan Butler
Jean-François Gallant (jf...@cam.org) on Sat, 3 Jan 1998 16:21:17 -0500 wrote:
>Because the default configuration for COM1 and COM3 is to
>share IRQ4, I always assumed that you can actually use both
>simultaneously. Any good COM driver should simply poll COM1
>and COM3 to see which raised IRQ4 when it goes up. And if
>incoming data is available on both ports, retrieve from both and
>dispatch to the right application.
Nice theory, however it doesn't work that way. It isn't just a
software problem, the hardware interferes... The original PC design
did not allow sharing interrupts, because it used edge triggering, not
level triggering. Modern PCI (with Microchannel and EISA before that)
does allow level triggering, but still most of the time the other
hardware in the system doesn't work that way. Well, when IBM set the
standard form COM1/3 and COM2/4 to share IRQs, they were on
Microchannel. But everyone else adopted it on ISA, which can't share.
Then you get into driver issues... Since most of the hardware won't
allow it, why write the Win95 driver to allow it? If you did want to
do the driver to allow it, how would you test it and on what hardware?
Everything's different. The most reasonable approach for mass market
software is to support the most common denominator, so as to trigger
the fewest number of support calls. In other words, plan on no support
for IRQ sharing...
sdb
--
Do NOT send me unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE)!
Watch out for munged e-mail address.
User should be sylvan and host is cyberhighway.net.
Jean-François Gallant
Sylvan Butler a écrit dans le message
<690oi0$927$1...@host-3.cyberhighway.net>...
>Jean-François Gallant (jf...@cam.org) on Sat, 3 Jan 1998 16:21:17 -0500
wrote:
>>Because the default configuration for COM1 and COM3 is to
>>share IRQ4, I always assumed that you can actually use both
>>simultaneously. Any good COM driver should simply poll COM1
>>and COM3 to see which raised IRQ4 when it goes up. And if
>>incoming data is available on both ports, retrieve from both and
>>dispatch to the right application.
>
>Nice theory, however it doesn't work that way. It isn't just a
>software problem, the hardware interferes... The original PC design
>did not allow sharing interrupts, because it used edge triggering, not
>level triggering. Modern PCI (with Microchannel and EISA before that)
>does allow level triggering, but still most of the time the other
>hardware in the system doesn't work that way. Well, when IBM set the
>standard form COM1/3 and COM2/4 to share IRQs, they were on
>Microchannel. But everyone else adopted it on ISA, which can't share.
You're right. There is however more than just edge triggering: if
the same IRQ is raised a second time while the first request is being
processed, will the programmable interrupt controller signal the CPU
a second time when it is reset (out to 0x20)? I don't think that there is
a way to work around such race conditions. Is there?
Anyway, I'm now using different IRQs for COM1 and COM3, and
my interface works just fine. I have not experienced the "CM11A
stuck" problem since I changed IRQs. I use "fast" macros so that
I can leave my computer off.
>Then you get into driver issues... Since most of the hardware won't
>allow it, why write the Win95 driver to allow it? If you did want to
>do the driver to allow it, how would you test it and on what hardware?
>Everything's different. The most reasonable approach for mass market
>software is to support the most common denominator, so as to trigger
>the fewest number of support calls. In other words, plan on no support
>for IRQ sharing...
Yes, I get your point...
J-F.
Benjamin Kaufman
In article <69o5ar$c...@tandem.CAM.ORG>, From "Jean-François Gallant"
<jf...@cam.org>, the following was written:
> You're right. There is however more than just edge triggering: if
> the same IRQ is raised a second time while the first request is being
> processed, will the programmable interrupt controller signal the CPU
> a second time when it is reset (out to 0x20)? I don't think that there
> is a way to work around such race conditions. Is there?
Yes there are. If there weren't, the drivers would never be reliable
<g>.
I'm rusty with my 8259 programming but the simplest possibility is
that the interrupt routine will just be called again. It's usually the
other scenario, missing the interrupt, that causes problems.
Ben
--
Benjamin Kaufman
Computer Design and Software
914-638-9142
----------------------------------------
|Consulting for real time applications |
|with NT and Unix. |
----------------------------------------
antispam: change domain from spam_sync to pobox.
- 01/17/98
Sylvan Butler
Jean-François Gallant (jf...@cam.org) on Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:29:18 -0500 wrote:
>You're right. There is however more than just edge triggering: if
>the same IRQ is raised a second time while the first request is being
>processed, will the programmable interrupt controller signal the CPU
>a second time when it is reset (out to 0x20)? I don't think that there is
>a way to work around such race conditions. Is there?
The entire interrupt system must be using level triggering. And you
are correct, there is more. There is no need for the PIC to signal the
CPU again. Since it is the same interrupt, the same handler would be
dispatched. The PIC merely continues to indicate the interrupt is
still active. This leads us to the previously discussed driver issues.
The int handler needs to check if the interrupt is still active, and if
so, deal with it. Unfortunately, this leads to the problems with the
drivers... If you are sharing between com ports, the driver needs to
know to look at all the possible ports. If you are sharing between
entirely different devices (say com and network) then they need some
way for the drivers to share an int handler. Pretty tricky!
>Anyway, I'm now using different IRQs for COM1 and COM3, and
>my interface works just fine. I have not experienced the "CM11A
>stuck" problem since I changed IRQs. I use "fast" macros so that
>I can leave my computer off.
Glad to hear it. I just bought a CM11 (on sale at Radio Shack) and
started playing with it yesterday. Put it on an old 386/25 and it is
working well after 24 hours. Hopefully that portends well! :)