Two FOCCCI's on the same bus

Development and discussion of fast charging systems eg Chademo , CCS etc
User avatar
uhi22
Posts: 1114
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 3:20 pm
Location: Ingolstadt/Germany
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Two FOCCCI's on the same bus

Post by uhi22 »

We have a confusion regarding the Clara version. On the github continuous integration page (on the "actions" tab) https://github.com/uhi22/ccs32clara/actions, there are the binaries available for each official version. The latest version is on the top of the list, with the highest run number. In this case, the #72 contains the fix:
image.png
In the "Artifacts" section of this run there are the zipped bin and hex files for flashing. After flashing, e.g. with STlink command line utility
ST-LINK_CLI -P stm32_canloader.hex -P CI_72.hex -V
the serial log of Clara should show the version:
This is Clara version 4=0.42.72.B
githubRunNumber 72
The 72 in the version and the githubRunNumber 72 are referring to the continuous integration build 72.
hiro
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2024 12:41 am
Has thanked: 8 times

Re: Two FOCCCI's on the same bus

Post by hiro »

<Update 10/18/2024>

I updated the Clara firmware to version 4=0.42.73.B.
Then, I have had success using two chargers at the same time.

But it's not stable: sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
I am attaching the log of when the double charge was successful.
Success Log Double charging.txt
(2.18 MiB) Downloaded 73 times
Also, after the firmware update I am losing communication using the ESP32 CAN Web Interface.


I would like you to look at this data and make improvements to ensure stable charging.
jrbe
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2023 3:17 pm
Location: CT, central shoreline, USA
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 173 times

Re: Two FOCCCI's on the same bus

Post by jrbe »

hiro wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 12:56 am <Update 10/18/2024>

I would like you to look at this data and make improvements to ensure stable charging.
If you're asking people to do things you should offer them a bounty / support them. If you are already, great.
User avatar
johu
Site Admin
Posts: 6709
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:52 pm
Location: Kassel/Germany
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 1536 times
Contact:

Re: Two FOCCCI's on the same bus

Post by johu »

hiro wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 12:56 am I would like you to look at this data and make improvements to ensure stable charging.
Please read the forum rules, especially #1 viewtopic.php?t=5714
jrbe wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 1:30 am If you are already, great
Not that I know of
Support R/D and forum on Patreon: https://patreon.com/openinverter - Subscribe on odysee: https://odysee.com/@openinverter:9
User avatar
uhi22
Posts: 1114
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 3:20 pm
Location: Ingolstadt/Germany
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Two FOCCCI's on the same bus

Post by uhi22 »

On first reading, I misread as
"I would like to look at this data and make improvements to ensure stable charging."
and thought "great, we have a new contributor".

The log of the good case does not help to understand the bad case. We need the log of the bad case for analysis.
User avatar
uhi22
Posts: 1114
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 3:20 pm
Location: Ingolstadt/Germany
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Two FOCCCI's on the same bus

Post by uhi22 »

hiro wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 12:56 am I am attaching the log of when the double charge was successful.
Summary of this log:
- It contains a failed part (see below) and a successful part afterwards.
- The intended bugfix, that we ignore foreign slac_match confirmations, works as intended:

Code: Select all

[294300] [PEVSLAC] received SLAC_MATCH.CNF but with foreign destination MAC. Ignoring.
- This is the first log from real world, where I saw that TCP retransmission is used and works:

Code: Select all

[297840] [TCP] Last packet wasn't ACKed for 100 ms, retransmitting
and succeeds after 10 retrys (TcpRetries 10). This is good, but it also indicates a quite bad physical connection.
- Later in the cable check, the TCP connection is lost completely after 10 retries, due to lost packages:

Code: Select all

[301260] [TCP] Last packet wasn't ACKed for 100 ms, retransmitting
[301370] [TCP] Giving up the retry
- The lost connection leads to the safe shutdown sequence, good.

Code: Select all

 [333920] Safe-shutdown-sequence: setting state B
- Afterwards, a normal charging session works.
- Session is stopped on charger side [599400] Checkpoint790: Charging is terminated from charger side.
User avatar
uhi22
Posts: 1114
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 3:20 pm
Location: Ingolstadt/Germany
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Two FOCCCI's on the same bus

Post by uhi22 »

More interesting details: After the TCP gave up during CableCheck

Code: Select all

[300180] [TCP] Last packet wasn't ACKed for 100 ms, retransmitting
....
[301260] [TCP] Last packet wasn't ACKed for 100 ms, retransmitting
[301370] [TCP] Giving up the retry
the charger later sends again data

Code: Select all

[302160] ETH rx IP:
and the ping pong continues

Code: Select all

[302160] ETH rx IP:
[302160] [TCP] sending ACK
And after Foccci sent again a CableCheck request, we get from the charger

Code: Select all

[304190] ETH rx IP: 023304732057a0b0c0d2345b86dd6000000000140640fe80000000000000a2b0c0fffed2345bfe80000000000000c69083f3fbcb981ec350e754362bf283000001b45010038464f90000
[304280] ETH rx IP: 023304732057a0b0c0d2345b86dd6000000000140640fe80000000000000a2b0c0fffed2345bfe80000000000000c69083f3fbcb981ec350e754362bf283000001b45014038464f50000
and ignore these messages completely.

So two things to be done:
* The TCP timeout could be a bit longer than the currently implemented 10*100ms, because obviously sometimes the charger needs longer (~2s in this log).
* Analyze what messages does the charger send as last two, and why Foccci does not react on them.
User avatar
uhi22
Posts: 1114
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 3:20 pm
Location: Ingolstadt/Germany
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Two FOCCCI's on the same bus

Post by uhi22 »

Clarified: The last two messages from the charger are just a TCP ack and reset:
image.png
This indicates that the charger does not want to further talk on this TCP connection (socket was closed).

So let's increase the TCP timeout and see how this improves the situation. Issue created: https://github.com/uhi22/ccs32clara/issues/43
[Edit] Done: https://github.com/uhi22/ccs32clara/com ... 21ef3d3ec4
Post Reply