# ROC driver polling issues

**URL:** <https://forum.cirrus-link.com/t/roc-driver-polling-issues/386>\
**Category:** Driver Modules\
**Created:** [July 5, 2023, 10:35pm UTC](https://forum.cirrus-link.com/t/roc-driver-polling-issues/386 "2023-07-05T22:35:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![arvin.sonuhi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@arvin.sonuhi](https://forum.cirrus-link.com/u/arvin.sonuhi)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 10:35pm UTC](https://forum.cirrus-link.com/t/roc-driver-polling-issues/386/1 "2023-07-05T22:35:53Z")

</div>

Hi there,

We have an Ignition Edge installation with the EFM Emerson ROC driver installed. We’re noticing errors when polling certain tags from an FB107:

| TlpPoller | 05Jul2023 15:51:30 | [‘FB107’ localhost:2012] Staling tag due to failed poll Tlp [pointType=DynamicPointType [pointType=3, pointTypeDescription=Analog Inputs, pointTypeAbbreviation=AIN], logicalNumber=28, parameterNumber=14, tlpData=null, dataBytes=0x03 0x1C 0x0E ] |
| --- | --- | --- |
| TlpPoller | 05Jul2023 15:51:30 | [‘FB107’ localhost:2012] Error - Date: Wed Jul 05 16:51:30 CDT 2023 |
| TlpPoller | 05Jul2023 15:51:30 | [‘FB107’ localhost:2012] Error - Response: 0xF0 0xF0 0x06 0x01 0xFF 0x03 0x04 0xB4 0x07 0x0F 0xC2 |
| TlpPoller | 05Jul2023 15:51:30 | [‘FB107’ localhost:2012] Error - Request Message: 0x01 0x03 0x1C 0x0E |
| TlpPoller | 05Jul2023 15:51:30 | [‘FB107’ localhost:2012] Got a polling error: ErrorCode: Invalid Point Type. ByteInError: 7 |
| TlpPoller | 05Jul2023 15:51:30 | [‘FB107’ localhost:2012] Response Data: 0x04 0xB4 0x07 |
| TlpPoller | 05Jul2023 15:51:30 | [‘FB107’ localhost:2012] Request Data: 0x01 0x03 0x1C 0x0E |
| TlpPoller | 05Jul2023 15:51:29 | [‘FB107’ localhost:2012] Error - Details: ErrorCode: Invalid Point Type. ByteInError: 7 |

This one in particular has a TLP of “L28/T03\_P14”. Is there perhaps something incorrect about in the templates/poll groups/definitions files? Our templates/poll groups only contains this TLP to narrow things down.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wes.johnson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f14d63/32.png) [@wes.johnson](https://forum.cirrus-link.com/u/wes.johnson)\
**Post date:** [July 6, 2023, 3:20pm UTC](https://forum.cirrus-link.com/t/roc-driver-polling-issues/386/2 "2023-07-06T15:20:14Z")

</div>

You’re going about it the right way. If you poll this same TLP via another tool like ROC Link - is the data type the same, correct, and can it be polled?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![arvin.sonuhi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@arvin.sonuhi](https://forum.cirrus-link.com/u/arvin.sonuhi)\
**Post date:** [July 6, 2023, 5:52pm UTC](https://forum.cirrus-link.com/t/roc-driver-polling-issues/386/3 "2023-07-06T17:52:52Z")

</div>

Thanks Wes. Turns out that L28 wasn’t programmed in the Floboss, so that started polling once it was added.

But we still have a similar issue that isn’t easily reproducible where polling doesn’t start on some (or even all) TLPs. We can mostly correct this issue by disabling/enabling the device (in Ignition Gateway → OPC UA → Device Connections), but sometimes a reboot/power cycle of the edge node is required. To note, we’re connecting to the FB107 via a serial-to-network proxy (ser2net).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wes.johnson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f14d63/32.png) [@wes.johnson](https://forum.cirrus-link.com/u/wes.johnson)\
**Post date:** [July 6, 2023, 9:04pm UTC](https://forum.cirrus-link.com/t/roc-driver-polling-issues/386/4 "2023-07-06T21:04:34Z")

</div>

If this is periodic and the same TLPs are being polled - I’d suspect an issue with ser2net. We’ve worked with this some and have noticed issues with it in terms of consistency. I know we have some customers using Moxa Terminal Servers instead: [Terminal Servers - Industrial Serial Device Servers | Moxa](https://www.moxa.com/en/products/industrial-edge-connectivity/serial-device-servers/terminal-servers)

There are a lot of other terminal servers on the market as well which I suspect will be more stable than ser2net.