[BUG] meatpack not available despite being enabled (Artillery Ruby)

[gudvinr]

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

Yes, and the problem still exists.

Bug Description

I enabled meatpack support with #define MEATPACK_ON_SERIAL_PORT_2 but M115 returns Cap:MEATPACK:0.
If I enable meatpack plugin in OctoPrint it can't connect to printer until I disable plugin.

Relevant sections of config file (I didn't change these by myself. It is taken from configuration example for Artillery Ruby board):

#define SERIAL_PORT -1
#define SERIAL_PORT_2 1
#define BAUDRATE_2 115200   // Enable to override BAUDRATE

Bug Timeline

No response

Expected behavior

I expect meatpack to be enabled for virtual serial port on USB connection and be able to connect to printer using OctoPrint with meatpack plugin.

Actual behavior

Meatpack doesn't seem to be enabled and OctoPrint stops connecting when meatpack plugin is enabled.

Steps to Reproduce

1. Compile Marlin with meatpack support
2. Turn on printer
3. Connect to printer using OctoPrint

Version of Marlin Firmware

2.0.9.3

Printer model

Artillery Genius Pro

Electronics

Stock Artillery Ruby board

Add-ons

Alwinner A13 SBC with OctoPrint installed

Bed Leveling

ABL Bilinear mesh

Your Slicer

Prusa Slicer

Host Software

OctoPrint

Additional information & file uploads

I connected filament runout sensor to endstop connector for Z-axis and modified pins_ARTILLERY_RUBY.h to accommodate for those changes.

[ellensp]

M115 only responds with the capabilities of the port you are connected with.
If you did not issue M115 from serial_port_2 it will report that meatpack is off

[gudvinr]

M115 only responds with the capabilities of the port you are connected with. If you did not issue M115 from serial_port_2 it will report that meatpack is off

Thanks. I tried enabling meatpack on serial 1 and it did help.

However, this raises quite an obvious question. If printer uses 2 (and more more) serial ports (one for tft and another for USB) how can you tell which one it is? It is kinda a good idea either distinguish them by name (like SERIAL_TFT and SERIAL_USB instead of just SERIAL_1 and SERIAL_2) or at least introduce mandatory comment or something like that.

[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.