Using the TMC2208/2209 drivers instead of the TMC2130?????


skyguynca
 

So I was able to find the TMC5160 drivers but will take a month to get them. Has anyone had success with using a different stepper driver?

Also the TMC2130 I can not find anywhere, instead when I search it shows a TMC2208 or 2209 as a replacement for them. Still that does
not tell me if they work with the MAXSTM setup.

If you have used the TMC2208/2209 to replace the TMC2130 let me know how it worked and if you had to make any changes.

Thanks
David


Peter Boreland
 

David,

I have two unused  you can have for a few bucks! PM me if you need them.

Peter


ghpicard
 

The TMC2208 and 2209 have a UART interface for configuration while the TMC5160 and TMC2130 have an SPI one. Short answer is no, you can't use TMC2208/09s to replace TMC5160/2130s in the MAXSTM.
UART communications with StepStick drivers is not supported by OnStep.


On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 11:17 PM Peter Boreland via groups.io <pcboreland=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
David,

I have two unused  you can have for a few bucks! PM me if you need them.

Peter


skyguynca
 

yes, please.


skyguynca
 

thank.you fir the link. i had not known this page existed.

Dacid


George Cushing
 

Yes, Howard has locked out drivers other then the 2130 and 5160. Bit of a shame the 2209 is UART otherwise it would kill the 2130. 2.0A Irms and $3 price makes is very attractive. Setting them for TMC2209_QUIET requires flagging the shafts to be sure they are running.


 

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 06:29 PM, George Cushing wrote:
Yes, Howard has locked out drivers other then the 2130 and 5160. Bit of a shame the 2209 is UART otherwise it would kill the 2130. 2.0A Irms and $3 price makes is very attractive. Setting them for TMC2209_QUIET requires flagging the shafts to be sure they are running.
So the 2209 is not supported in new versions of OnStep?  I have them installed on my MKS running Onstep 3.16.  They run great!  Only drawback is you have to choose the microstep value and it becomes fixed with the shunts since they are not SPI.  But I don’t care that my mount can only slew at 0.75deg/s.  My objective was good tracking for AP.  The extra minute of slew forces me to breathe, look up, and relax.


George Cushing
 

They are not supported on the MaxSTM PCB. The 2208 and 2209 and some other TMC drivers are not compatible with SPI control. Rather they use one wire UART control, which is not supported by OnStep. They can be used in place of a LV8729 driver and benefit from traditional Mode controls M0, M1, etc.


 

They are supported in recent versions of OnStep and OnStepX in standalone mode and they works fine. It's not about OnStep version but about build. One can use them pretty much everywhere except in MaxSTM builds. FAQ wiki page describes which stepstick can be used with each build. IMPO they are very best among all legacy step/dir stepsticks, even without UART as they have stealthChop, SpreadCycle, interpolation, low resistance and high current output.


Khalid Baheyeldin
 

On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 07:41 AM, Otto wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 06:29 PM, George Cushing wrote:
Yes, Howard has locked out drivers other then the 2130 and 5160. Bit of a shame the 2209 is UART otherwise it would kill the 2130. 2.0A Irms and $3 price makes is very attractive. Setting them for TMC2209_QUIET requires flagging the shafts to be sure they are running.
So the 2209 is not supported in new versions of OnStep?  I have them installed on my MKS running Onstep 3.16.  They run great!  Only drawback is you have to choose the microstep value and it becomes fixed with the shunts since they are not SPI.
Lots of misconceptions above, so I will attempt to clarify ..

In general, specific boards impose certain limitations on what drivers can be used.
This may be due to how they are wired.
So just because "OnStep support xyz driver" does not mean that "I can use it with zzz board" automatically.
Each Wiki page for a board spells out which drivers can be used with that board, and which are the recommended ones.
Consequently, users should check the limitations of their boards, and always stick with the recommended drivers for it.

Now back to the TMC2209.
It requires a UART interface to use its full range of microstepping, as well as other features.
Because OnStep, so far, does not support the UART interface, the TMC2209 is supported, but limited to a certain range of microsteps.
But in reality that range is all that is needed for OnStep: 1/16, 1/32, and 1/64.
Values below that cause resonance and stalling. Values above that cause low torque and low stepping accuracy.
So what we have is sufficient.

Now the TMC2208 is different: it has an even more restrictive range of microsteps when used in OnStep.
So no need to go for the 08, with the 09 having all its features and more flexibility.


ghpicard
 

I must say that the MAXSTM boards (that's what the OP asked for) does not have provisions for the shunts/bridges needed to appropriately configure the 2208/09 for standalone use on Axis1/2. If one is willing and able to build an interposer board that takes care of that (not difficult but soldering skills and design too as IIRC none has been made available to general public yet) then yes, it is definitely possible to use those.
Drop-in replacement of a 2208/09 in place of a 2130/5160, on that kind of boards it's simply not possible.


On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 3:11 PM Khalid Baheyeldin <kbahey@...> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 07:41 AM, Otto wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 06:29 PM, George Cushing wrote:
Yes, Howard has locked out drivers other then the 2130 and 5160. Bit of a shame the 2209 is UART otherwise it would kill the 2130. 2.0A Irms and $3 price makes is very attractive. Setting them for TMC2209_QUIET requires flagging the shafts to be sure they are running.
So the 2209 is not supported in new versions of OnStep?  I have them installed on my MKS running Onstep 3.16.  They run great!  Only drawback is you have to choose the microstep value and it becomes fixed with the shunts since they are not SPI.
Lots of misconceptions above, so I will attempt to clarify ..

In general, specific boards impose certain limitations on what drivers can be used.
This may be due to how they are wired.
So just because "OnStep support xyz driver" does not mean that "I can use it with zzz board" automatically.
Each Wiki page for a board spells out which drivers can be used with that board, and which are the recommended ones.
Consequently, users should check the limitations of their boards, and always stick with the recommended drivers for it.

Now back to the TMC2209.
It requires a UART interface to use its full range of microstepping, as well as other features.
Because OnStep, so far, does not support the UART interface, the TMC2209 is supported, but limited to a certain range of microsteps.
But in reality that range is all that is needed for OnStep: 1/16, 1/32, and 1/64.
Values below that cause resonance and stalling. Values above that cause low torque and low stepping accuracy.
So what we have is sufficient.

Now the TMC2208 is different: it has an even more restrictive range of microsteps when used in OnStep.
So no need to go for the 08, with the 09 having all its features and more flexibility.


 

Thanks for the clarification on the TMC2209.  Correction, my Goto slew speed last night with MKS/2209 was 1.1 deg/sec set at 32 microsteps.


Khalid Baheyeldin
 

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 12:08 AM, ghpicard wrote:
I must say that the MAXSTM boards (that's what the OP asked for) does not have provisions for the shunts/bridges needed to appropriately configure the 2208/09 for standalone use on Axis1/2.
That goes back to my point about board/driver combos imposing some restrictions.
Stick to what the board recommends, and all will be good.

I agree about your wider point though: that the low cost, high current, smooth operation of the TMC2209 being attractive.
Why was the MaxSTM wired to not allow them? There has to be a good reason for Howard to do this.
If you want to use them, find a board that supports them.


Khalid Baheyeldin
 

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 07:10 AM, Otto wrote:
Correction, my Goto slew speed last night with MKS/2209 was 1.1 deg/sec set at 32 microsteps.
Did you try to change:

#define STEP_WAVE_FORM PULSE

That gives a 1.6X speed boost for slewing.


 

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:54 AM, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 07:10 AM, Otto wrote:
Correction, my Goto slew speed last night with MKS/2209 was 1.1 deg/sec set at 32 microsteps.
Did you try to change:

#define STEP_WAVE_FORM PULSE

That gives a 1.6X speed boost for slewing.
I have Khalid.  I'm at 32 microsteps and also using a 24V power supply.  I think that's 'all she'll do'.  I do know I will get faster slews if I go down to 16 us.


ghpicard
 

There is no support for UART controlled drivers in OnStep, only SPI ones so that rules TMC2209 out for Axis1/2, unless, as said, one is willing to fall back into Standalone mode (so no software enhanced fancies) and builds a very simple interposer board. Axis 3/4 are wired for standalone mode only so they support the TMC2208/9 straight out of the box.

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 2:53 PM Khalid Baheyeldin <kbahey@...> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 12:08 AM, ghpicard wrote:
I must say that the MAXSTM boards (that's what the OP asked for) does not have provisions for the shunts/bridges needed to appropriately configure the 2208/09 for standalone use on Axis1/2.
That goes back to my point about board/driver combos imposing some restrictions.
Stick to what the board recommends, and all will be good.

I agree about your wider point though: that the low cost, high current, smooth operation of the TMC2209 being attractive.
Why was the MaxSTM wired to not allow them? There has to be a good reason for Howard to do this.
If you want to use them, find a board that supports them.


ghpicard
 

You should be able to use 256 microsteps with that board too but if 1.1 deg/sec slew seems slow at 32 microsteps, with 256 it will be insufferable. :)

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 3:02 PM Otto <olpar007@...> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:54 AM, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 07:10 AM, Otto wrote:
Correction, my Goto slew speed last night with MKS/2209 was 1.1 deg/sec set at 32 microsteps.
Did you try to change:

#define STEP_WAVE_FORM PULSE

That gives a 1.6X speed boost for slewing.
I have Khalid.  I'm at 32 microsteps and also using a 24V power supply.  I think that's 'all she'll do'.  I do know I will get faster slews if I go down to 16 us.


Khalid Baheyeldin
 

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 01:03 PM, ghpicard wrote:
There is no support for UART controlled drivers in OnStep, only SPI ones so that rules TMC2209 out for Axis1/2, unless, as said, one is willing to fall back into Standalone mode (so no software enhanced fancies) and builds a very simple interposer board. Axis 3/4 are wired for standalone mode only so they support the TMC2208/9 straight out of the box.
Yes, there is no UART mode support yet in OnStep.

But this is under discussion, and Howard may change this in the future.
Stay tuned ...


Khalid Baheyeldin
 

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 01:08 PM, ghpicard wrote:
You should be able to use 256 microsteps with that board too but if 1.1 deg/sec slew seems slow at 32 microsteps, with 256 it will be insufferable. :)
No.

He should stay with 1/16, 1/32 or 1/64, even if the driver is able to do other values.
As I explained previously, using lower or higher values have disadvantages (stalling, less accuracy, less torque).


ghpicard
 

Ah! I just got a nice set of TMC2209s and I was planning to start meddling with the code to see if I was able to make them work. The 2209 has nice features and it seems to be in a middle ground between the 2130 and the 5160. What made me take this path is that I recently blew two of my 5160s (don't ask...) and I have been left with only one, which I am using for the RA axis, and I'm using a 2130 for the DEC axis. When I went to get new 5160s I found that there is a kind of shortage and most sellers don't carry them. Perhaps  it is something temporary, but being that the 2209 are easily available and have many desirable characteristics, not to talk abut its lower, way lower price, I thought that enabling their use in OnStep would be a welcome move.

Of course who better than the one that made the code to modify it, but if I get to do it (and that will certainly take time) and can make something workable, I'll shout out and ask for a fork.