Similar to, but different from, Marlin, end stops, and position report - possible bug?

This is roughly the same question, but I'm trying to understand the endstops hit response from Marlin.

I'm working on a prototype machine that has min and max endstops on X, Y.

How can I get the real position after hitting the max endstops? The reported position is either what I told the machine to move to, or if SW endstops are enabled, whatever the config value for max X, Y are.

When the endstops hit message comes in it provides a number after the X or Y but I can't figure out how it's related to anything in the FW config or the physical printer.


  • Bed/max sizes (X, Y) set to 500
  • Endstops enabled
  • Move w/ G0 Y250
  • Ymax endstop triggered ~161
  • Receive echo:endstops hit: Y:0.00
  • M114 returns X:0.00 Y:250.00 Z:0.00 E:0.00 Count A:25147 B:25147 Z:0

So the counts are (likely) correct (CoreYX machine), they're zero after homing to minimum position, but using them to determine the physical position seems sketchy.

Now: If I continue...

  • Move w/ G0 X250
  • Receive echo:endstops hit: X:157.31


  • G0 Y250
  • Receive echo:endstops hit: Y:-265.55

Here's the thing: those values are roughly what I expect the X, Y max values to be, except (a) they're reversed, e.g., IRL the ~Y at Ymax endstop is around 161, and Xmax endstop is around 265.

Is Marlin:

  • Flipping the X/Y values somehow (and inverting X, probably because I'm doing something weird to try to track this down)?
  • Should I instead do some CoreYX math to attempt to get the physical position based on stepper counts?

What is happening here?

  • $\begingroup$ Quick question, which version of Marlin are you running on your CoreXY? Old marlin or the new 2.0 branch? $\endgroup$ – Nach0z Jun 27 '19 at 13:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Nach0z Old; currently on 1.1.8 with an update to 1.1.9 coming quickly. We realized that the endstop response might not be doing the CoreYX math right but haven't had a chance to dig into it yet, but that could well explain it. We just don't want to dupe the Marlin math off the motor counts if we can avoid it. $\endgroup$ – Dave Newton Jun 27 '19 at 15:05
  • $\begingroup$ @DaveNewton Last time I checked, 1.1.9 had some issues with CoreXY (too?). Just go with Marlin 2.0 $\endgroup$ – towe Jun 28 '19 at 7:35
  • $\begingroup$ @towe Thanks; alpha firmware isn't in the cards for now ;) $\endgroup$ – Dave Newton Jun 28 '19 at 19:10
  • $\begingroup$ @towe 1.1.9 works fine for my CoreXY, what issues do you mean? Maybe that helps the OP. $\endgroup$ – 0scar Jul 1 '19 at 8:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.