Cleanup redundancy in documentation between PncConf, StepConf and latency test #3601
Conversation
…nf.adoc and stepconf.adoc
johnobrien
force-pushed
the
latency-test-cleanup
branch
from
9ea24ce to
7929a7b
Compare
| when LinuxCNC requires its calculations and when doing LinuxCNCs calculations it cannot be interrupted by lower priority requests (such as user input to screen buttons or drawing etc). | ||
|
|
||
| Testing the latency is very important and a key thing to check early. | ||
| Luckily by using the Mesa card to do the work that requires the fastest response time (encoder counting and PWM generation) we can endure a lot more latency then if we used the parallel port for these things. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why did you remove this information explaining that the base period is what you need to test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In my opinion, the information about the base period should only appear once in install/latency-test.adoc. Having detail here is redundant and possibly confusing. In addition, the information about how to interpret the latency test should also only appear in install/latency-test.adoc.
| The important number from the result of the Latency Test is the 'max jitter'. In the example above, 9075 | ||
| nanoseconds (ns), or 9.075 microseconds (µs), is the highest jitter. | ||
| Record this number, and enter it in the Base Period Maximum Jitter box. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again this is good information except it is referencing software stepping requirements.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same idea: I assert it should only appear once in install/latency-test.adoc and be pointed to from stepconf.adoc and pncconf.adoc. Having it in three places is redundant and confusing (particularly when they don't all align).
|
How about a concise need-to-know description in stepconf/pncconf docs with a link to a more in depth description? |
|
They are going to have to run the latency test, right?
So, linking to the latency test documentation makes sense to me. The docs in general link internally to relevant topics. I don’t think it makes sense to not do that here.
…________________________________
From: c-morley ***@***.***>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 6:51:32 PM
To: LinuxCNC/linuxcnc ***@***.***>
Cc: John OBrien ***@***.***>; Author ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [LinuxCNC/linuxcnc] Cleanup redundancy in documentation between PncConf, StepConf and latency test (PR #3601)
[https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7367477?s=20&v=4]c-morley left a comment (LinuxCNC/linuxcnc#3601)<#3601 (comment)>
How about a concise need-to-know description in stepconf/pncconf docs with a link to a more in depth description?
Personally I hate having to jump around docs to get the basic information I need to do particular task.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#3601 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADNB7ZWWSSYIWNJE7IAOI334ZTIJAVCNFSM6AAAAACLASBIGKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTKMZVGA4DAMRYGU>.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Chriss, what do you suggest? It would be a shame to lose the typo fixes. |
|
I agree. |
3 participants
Attempts to remove the redundancy in talking about Max Jitter from PncConf and StepConf and put it all into latency-test.adoc. Also, clarify that the implications of Max Jitter are and update Max Jitter documentation to account for hardware cards (based off this forum post).