Hi,
Since the base example uses BCAN_1 as the first node, all voltages should be applied correctly given that we are seeing the example running no problem from our side, can you confirm that the voltages are applied correctly under the base example (no modifications)?
As a note, CAN Bus requires a minimum of 2 nodes to work correctly, if you are routing a message to a floating node (i.e. is the only node on the specific CAN bus), then an error is transmitted on the bus and goes to standby. For what you are telling, we understand that BCAN_2 is left floating, which is incorrect.
Can you help us elaborate more on how you probed the signals you are saying?
For the following part of the schematic of RDB3 (which you previously said you are using), we see the following:
Where BCAN_0 and BCAN_1 share the control signals (EN and STB), for which if BCAN_0 is being enabled, BCAN_1 is also enabled. Are you using an NXP reference board? Or is this a custom board?
As for the available BCAN's, all BCAN's are being supplied with the necessary voltages, as seen under the RDB3 schematic, unless it was modified or it is a custom board.
Another situation is that if the signals are not configured correctly, the voltages are not applied correctly. Could be another possibility. But given the example configures all pins, this should not be the problem.
Please, let us know.
Hi,
We seem to be misunderstanding the overall idea behind the project you are building. We do apologize.
We see the following infinite loop being created:
But nothing is being done. We understand that all controllers are being initialized and nothing else.
Also, under the HardwareObjects, we see that no reference to BCAN_2 was created, can you help us verify this?
Can you help us verify that the example works as expected from your side (no modifications) then start modifying from there? We recommend first start moving the BCAN's to a different channel to understand that your configurations on regards of routing is correct, not adding new routing rules.
Please, let us know.
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback. We seem to be misunderstanding the configurations you are implementing, since CAN Object ID 9 is already being used under the example:
Did you modify this option or did you modify several configurations? We can recommend opening a ticket under the NXP online services if you are unable to share your project under the public community, since it might be better for the team to look directly into all the configurations of your project.
We do apologize.
Please, let us know.
