[BUG] M115 - badly reported print area dimensions.

[radek8]

Did you test the latest bugfix-2.0.x code?

Yes, and the problem still exists.

Bug Description

I have a printing area of 230x230
The end stops are in positions X -12 and Y -33
The Marlin defines:

// The size of the printable area
#define X_BED_SIZE 230
#define Y_BED_SIZE 230

// Travel limits (mm) after homing, corresponding to endstop positions.
#define X_MIN_POS -12
#define Y_MIN_POS -33
#define Z_MIN_POS 0
#define X_MAX_POS X_BED_SIZE
#define Y_MAX_POS Y_BED_SIZE
#define Z_MAX_POS 255

The M115 command reports incorrect pad dimensions

The work surface (print bed) does not start at position -12 and -33 but at position 0.

Bug Timeline

No response

Expected behavior

Therefore, the response to the M115 command should look like this correctly:
area: {full: {min: {x: -12.0000, y: -33.0000, z: 0.0000}, max: {x: 230.0000, y: 230.0000, z: 255.0000}}, work: {min: {x: 0.0000 , y: 0.0000, z: 0.0000}, max: {x: 230.0000, y: 230.0000, z: 255.0000}}}

the workspace does not start at position -12 and -33 but at position 0.

Actual behavior

The answer to the M115 command is:

area: {full: {min: {x: -12.0000, y: -33.0000, z: 0.0000}, max: {x: 230.0000, y: 230.0000, z: 255.0000}}, work: {min: {x: - 12.0000, y: -33.0000, z: 0.0000}, max: {x: 230.0000, y: 230.0000, z: 255.0000}}}

Steps to Reproduce

No response

Version of Marlin Firmware

Marlin bugfix 2.0.x - from 14.8.2021

Printer model

No response

Electronics

No response

Add-ons

No response

Bed Leveling

ABL Bilinear mesh

Your Slicer

Cura

Host Software

No response

Additional information & file uploads

Config.zip

[thinkyhead]

Try this in M115 and see if it produces a better result. Check it with soft endstops enabled/disabled and with G92 workspace offsets (as applied to CNC_COORDINATE_SYSTEMS). If it looks correct then I can merge this change soon.

    #if ENABLED(M115_GEOMETRY_REPORT)
      const xyz_pos_t bmin = { 0, 0, 0 },
                      bmax = { X_BED_SIZE, Y_BED_SIZE, Z_MAX_POS },
                      dmin = { X_MIN_POS, Y_MIN_POS, Z_MIN_POS },
                      dmax = { X_MAX_POS, Y_MAX_POS, Z_MAX_POS };
      xyz_pos_t cmin = bmin, cmax = bmax;
      apply_motion_limits(cmin);
      apply_motion_limits(cmax);
      const xyz_pos_t lmin = dmin.asLogical(), lmax = dmax.asLogical(),
                      wmin = cmin.asLogical(), wmax = cmax.asLogical();
      SERIAL_ECHOLNPAIR(
        "area:{"
          "full:{"
            "min:{x:", lmin.x, ",y:", lmin.y, ",z:", lmin.z, "},"
            "max:{x:", lmax.x, ",y:", lmax.y, ",z:", lmax.z, "}"
          "},"
          "work:{"
            "min:{x:", wmin.x, ",y:", wmin.y, ",z:", wmin.z, "},"
            "max:{x:", wmax.x, ",y:", wmax.y, ",z:", wmax.z, "}",
          "}"
        "}"
      );
    #endif

[radek8]

thank you, now it works as expected

area:{full:{min:{x:-12.0000,y:-33.0000,z:0.0000},max:{x:230.0000,y:230.0000,z:255.0000}},work:{min:{x:0.0000,y:0.0000,z:0.0000},max:{x:230.0000,y:230.0000,z:255.0000}}}

[radek8]

Tested even when printing the second nozzle in the extreme position.
It works well the way you fixed it.
Thank you

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.