I have a CAN bus message that is composed from 3 parts.
What is the best way to decode it ?
My thinking is to use 3 FIFOs when the first part is decompsed, I store it in the FIFO, and the same for the other 2 parts.
Then I combine those 3 Fifos togethers into one message.
The total message length is 64bytes PDU Lenght
I'm using the following function to get can bus data
HAL_CAN_GetRxMessage
can bus
Using the answer to your previous question from here, you can use that bitfield in combination with a plain uint8_t [64]. For example
typedef struct
{
uint8_t data[64];
can_received_t received;
} msg_t;
Fill up with data as you receive it, writing it to the corresponding data bytes, then set the bit to indicate that the message has been partially received. The struct isn't regarded as complete until you have received all parts.
A queue/FIFO only fills one purpose, and that is to delay execution of something until later, when there's more time. There's no reason to do that here. Your CAN message decoding could look something like:
msg_t msg;
switch(received_can_id)
{
...
case CANID_FOO:
memcpy(&msg.data[FOO_INDEX], rec_data, FOO_SIZE);
msg.received |= RECEIVED_FOO;
break;
case CANID_BAR:
memcpy(&msg.data[BAR_INDEX], rec_data, BAR_SIZE);
msg.received |= RECEIVED_BAR;
break;
...
}
if(msg.received == RECEIVED_ALL)
{
use(&msg); // do something
memset(&msg, 0, sizeof msg); // reset everything
}
This is fairly quick code, no need to queue anything.
Considering the standard CAN message is of size 8bytes length, you can declare message as uin64_t and combine the respective signals into message using |.
Example:
uint64_t message = 0;
uint8_t incomingBytes[8] = {0};
for(int i=0; i<8; i++)
{
message = message <<8;
message |= incomingBytes[i];
}
If you want to interpret VIN data as string then,
char vindata [9];
memcpy(vindata, incomingBytes, 8);
vindata[8] = '\0';
Related
I'm trying to simulate the corruption of a packet transfer in a way that the checksum recognizes that the received packet is invalid.
Is there a function that allows me to change one single byte of the content of my packet?
EDIT:
Ok, I'm trying to use XOR, that was a great idea, but now the problem persists. How can I change one single byte of my packet if the content I'm trying to corrupt is char*? How can i force it to work like a simple char and move my way around with a for cycle or something like that?
EDIT 2:
int main() {
packet* pkt = pkt_init(0,PKT,"Test Pkt 0",5);
int length = 10;
char content[length];
char xor[length];
content[length] = (char) pkt->content;
for(int i = 0; i<length; ++i)
xor[i] = ~content[i];
printf("Content: %s, Xor: %s\n", content, xor);
return 0;
}
How to i check if the "damaging" went well? The console returns this:
Content: �~p��, Xor: O��x���!
I have a computer software that sends RGB color codes to Arduino using USB. It works fine when they are sent slowly but when tens of them are sent every second it freaks out. What I think happens is that the Arduino serial buffer fills out so quickly that the processor can't handle it the way I'm reading it.
#define INPUT_SIZE 11
void loop() {
if(Serial.available()) {
char input[INPUT_SIZE + 1];
byte size = Serial.readBytes(input, INPUT_SIZE);
input[size] = 0;
int channelNumber = 0;
char* channel = strtok(input, " ");
while(channel != 0) {
color[channelNumber] = atoi(channel);
channel = strtok(0, " ");
channelNumber++;
}
setColor(color);
}
}
For example the computer might send 255 0 123 where the numbers are separated by space. This works fine when the sending interval is slow enough or the buffer is always filled with only one color code, for example 255 255 255 which is 11 bytes (INPUT_SIZE). However if a color code is not 11 bytes long and a second code is sent immediately, the code still reads 11 bytes from the serial buffer and starts combining the colors and messes them up. How do I avoid this but keep it as efficient as possible?
It is not a matter of reading the serial port faster, it is a matter of not reading a fixed block of 11 characters when the input data has variable length.
You are telling it to read until 11 characters are received or the timeout occurs, but if the first group is fewer than 11 characters, and a second group follows immediately there will be no timeout, and you will partially read the second group. You seem to understand that, so I am not sure how you conclude that "reading faster" will help.
Using your existing data encoding of ASCII decimal space delimited triplets, one solution would be to read the input one character at a time until the entire triplet were read, however you could more simply use the Arduino ReadBytesUntil() function:
#define INPUT_SIZE 3
void loop()
{
if (Serial.available())
{
char rgb_str[3][INPUT_SIZE+1] = {{0},{0},{0}};
Serial.readBytesUntil( " ", rgb_str[0], INPUT_SIZE );
Serial.readBytesUntil( " ", rgb_str[1], INPUT_SIZE );
Serial.readBytesUntil( " ", rgb_str[2], INPUT_SIZE );
for( int channelNumber = 0; channelNumber < 3; channelNumber++)
{
color[channelNumber] = atoi(channel);
}
setColor(color);
}
}
Note that this solution does not require the somewhat heavyweight strtok() processing since the Stream class has done the delimiting work for you.
However there is a simpler and even more efficient solution. In your solution you are sending ASCII decimal strings then requiring the Arduino to spend CPU cycles needlessly extracting the fields and converting to integer values, when you could simply send the byte values directly - leaving if necessary the vastly more powerful PC to do any necessary processing to pack the data thus. Then the code might be simply:
void loop()
{
if( Serial.available() )
{
for( int channelNumber = 0; channelNumber < 3; channelNumber++)
{
color[channelNumber] = Serial.Read() ;
}
setColor(color);
}
}
Note that I have not tested any of above code, and the Arduino documentation is lacking in some cases with respect to descriptions of return values for example. You may need to tweak the code somewhat.
Neither of the above solve the synchronisation problem - i.e. when the colour values are streaming, how do you know which is the start of an RGB triplet? You have to rely on getting the first field value and maintaining count and sync thereafter - which is fine until perhaps the Arduino is started after data stream starts, or is reset, or the PC process is terminated and restarted asynchronously. However that was a problem too with your original implementation, so perhaps a problem to be dealt with elsewhere.
First of all, I agree with #Thomas Padron-McCarthy. Sending character string instead of a byte array(11 bytes instead of 3 bytes, and the parsing process) is wouldsimply be waste of resources. On the other hand, the approach you should follow depends on your sender:
Is it periodic or not
Is is fixed size or not
If it's periodic you can check in the time period of the messages. If not, you need to check the messages before the buffer is full.
If you think printable encoding is not suitable for you somehow; In any case i would add an checksum to the message. Let's say you have fixed size message structure:
typedef struct MyMessage
{
// unsigned char id; // id of a message maybe?
unsigned char colors[3]; // or unsigned char r,g,b; //maybe
unsigned char checksum; // more than one byte could be a more powerful checksum
};
unsigned char calcCheckSum(struct MyMessage msg)
{
//...
}
unsigned int validateCheckSum(struct MyMessage msg)
{
//...
if(valid)
return 1;
else
return 0;
}
Now, you should check every 4 byte (the size of MyMessage) in a sliding window fashion if it is valid or not:
void findMessages( )
{
struct MyMessage* msg;
byte size = Serial.readBytes(input, INPUT_SIZE);
byte msgSize = sizeof(struct MyMessage);
for(int i = 0; i+msgSize <= size; i++)
{
msg = (struct MyMessage*) input[i];
if(validateCheckSum(msg))
{// found a message
processMessage(msg);
}
else
{
//discard this byte, it's a part of a corrupted msg (you are too late to process this one maybe)
}
}
}
If It's not a fixed size, it gets complicated. But i'm guessing you don't need to hear that for this case.
EDIT (2)
I've striked out this edit upon comments.
One last thing, i would use a circular buffer. First add the received bytes into the buffer, then check the bytes in that buffer.
EDIT (3)
I gave thought on comments. I see the point of printable encoded messages. I guess my problem is working in a military company. We don't have printable encoded "fire" arguments here :) There are a lot of messages come and go all the time and decoding/encoding printable encoded messages would be waste of time. Also we use hardwares which usually has very small messages with bitfields. I accept that it could be more easy to examine/understand a printable message.
Hope it helps,
Gokhan.
If faster is really what you want....this is little far fetched.
The fastest way I can think of to meet your needs and provide synchronization is by sending a byte for each color and changing the parity bit in a defined way assuming you can read the parity and bytes value of the character with wrong parity.
You will have to deal with the changing parity and most of the characters will not be human readable, but it's gotta be one of the fastest ways to send three bytes of data.
I am having a problem in C with addressing char array in a structure. When I write characters in the array it writes them in word boundaries and not character boundaries. Here is the structure declaration.
typedef struct RxBuffer {
int Status;
int ByteCount;
int Index;
char Data[SCI_BUFFER_LENGTH];
} RxBuffer;
and here is the code that actually does the write,
RxBuffer SciaRxBuffer;
char SciaRxData;
int LoopBackCrFlag;
int RxDataReady;
interrupt void scia_rx_isr()
{
// Get Rx Data and first LoopBack
SciaRxData = SciaRegs.SCIRXBUF.all; // Read data
SciaRegs.SCITXBUF = SciaRxData; // Send loop back Tx data
// Check to see if carriage return
if (SciaRxData == CR)
{
// Set the loopback flag so Line-feed is transmitted
LoopBackCrFlag = TRUE;
}
//!
//! Problem is right here. SciaRxData is being written into
//! SciaRxBuffer.Data[SciaRxBuffer.ByteCount++] on Word
//! boundaries instead of byte boundaries.
//!
// Stuff RxBuffer & Mark as busy
SciaRxBuffer.Data[SciaRxBuffer.ByteCount++] = SciaRxData;
SciaRxBuffer.Status = RX_BUSY;
if (SciaRxData == CR)
{
SciaRxBuffer.Status = RX_READY;
SciaRxBuffer.Index = 0;
RxDataReady = TRUE;
}
// Clear Overflow and interrupt flags
SciaRegs.SCIFFRX.bit.RXFFOVRCLR = 1; // Clear Overflow flag
SciaRegs.SCIFFRX.bit.RXFFINTCLR = 1; // Clear Interrupt flag
// Issue the PIE ack
PieCtrlRegs.PIEACK.all|=0x100;
}
Any help is welcome
Best Regards,
Steve Mansfield
Thank you for everyone's input. I just did some digging into the hardware and found out that the TI DSP that I am using does not support byte operations. It's smallest operation is a word (2 bytes). Even though I declared the array as a char array, when I write to the array it writes it as an integer. If I want to handle byte operations I will have to shift left the first character 8 bits and then OR the next character and then write it into the array. Like everyone always says, if there is a problem with the hardware -- fix it in software!
Best Regards,
Steve Mansfield
I'm trying to access a SPI sensor using the SPIDEV driver but my code gets stuck on IOCTL.
I'm running embedded Linux on the SAM9X5EK (mounting AT91SAM9G25). The device is connected to SPI0. I enabled CONFIG_SPI_SPIDEV and CONFIG_SPI_ATMEL in menuconfig and added the proper code to the BSP file:
static struct spi_board_info spidev_board_info[] {
{
.modalias = "spidev",
.max_speed_hz = 1000000,
.bus_num = 0,
.chips_select = 0,
.mode = SPI_MODE_3,
},
...
};
spi_register_board_info(spidev_board_info, ARRAY_SIZE(spidev_board_info));
1MHz is the maximum accepted by the sensor, I tried 500kHz but I get an error during Linux boot (too slow apparently). .bus_num and .chips_select should correct (I also tried all other combinations). SPI_MODE_3 I checked the datasheet for it.
I get no error while booting and devices appear correctly as /dev/spidevX.X. I manage to open the file and obtain a valid file descriptor. I'm now trying to access the device with the following code (inspired by examples I found online).
#define MY_SPIDEV_DELAY_USECS 100
// #define MY_SPIDEV_SPEED_HZ 1000000
#define MY_SPIDEV_BITS_PER_WORD 8
int spidevReadRegister(int fd,
unsigned int num_out_bytes,
unsigned char *out_buffer,
unsigned int num_in_bytes,
unsigned char *in_buffer)
{
struct spi_ioc_transfer mesg[2] = { {0}, };
uint8_t num_tr = 0;
int ret;
// Write data
mesg[0].tx_buf = (unsigned long)out_buffer;
mesg[0].rx_buf = (unsigned long)NULL;
mesg[0].len = num_out_bytes;
// mesg[0].delay_usecs = MY_SPIDEV_DELAY_USECS,
// mesg[0].speed_hz = MY_SPIDEV_SPEED_HZ;
mesg[0].bits_per_word = MY_SPIDEV_BITS_PER_WORD;
mesg[0].cs_change = 0;
num_tr++;
// Read data
mesg[1].tx_buf = (unsigned long)NULL;
mesg[1].rx_buf = (unsigned long)in_buffer;
mesg[1].len = num_in_bytes;
// mesg[1].delay_usecs = MY_SPIDEV_DELAY_USECS,
// mesg[1].speed_hz = MY_SPIDEV_SPEED_HZ;
mesg[1].bits_per_word = MY_SPIDEV_BITS_PER_WORD;
mesg[1].cs_change = 1;
num_tr++;
// Do the actual transmission
if(num_tr > 0)
{
ret = ioctl(fd, SPI_IOC_MESSAGE(num_tr), mesg);
if(ret == -1)
{
printf("Error: %d\n", errno);
return -1;
}
}
return 0;
}
Then I'm using this function:
#define OPTICAL_SENSOR_ADDR "/dev/spidev0.0"
...
int fd;
fd = open(OPTICAL_SENSOR_ADDR, O_RDWR);
if (fd<=0) {
printf("Device not found\n");
exit(1);
}
uint8_t buffer1[1] = {0x3a};
uint8_t buffer2[1] = {0};
spidevReadRegister(fd, 1, buffer1, 1, buffer2);
When I run it, the code get stuck on IOCTL!
I did this way because, in order to read a register on the sensor, I need to send a byte with its address in it and then get the answer back without changing CS (however, when I tried using write() and read() functions, while learning, I got the same result, stuck on them).
I'm aware that specifying .speed_hz causes a ENOPROTOOPT error on Atmel (I checked spidev.c) so I commented that part.
Why does it get stuck? I though it can be as the device is created but it actually doesn't "feel" any hardware. As I wasn't sure if hardware SPI0 corresponded to bus_num 0 or 1, I tried both, but still no success (btw, which one is it?).
UPDATE: I managed to have the SPI working! Half of it.. MOSI is transmitting the right data, but CLK doesn't start... any idea?
When I'm working with SPI I always use an oscyloscope to see the output of the io's. If you have a 4 channel scope ypu can easily debug the issue, and find out if you're axcessing the right io's, using the right speed, etc. I usually compare the signal I get to the datasheet diagram.
I think there are several issues here. First of all SPI is bidirectional. So if yo want to send something over the bus you also get something. Therefor always you have to provide a valid buffer to rx_buf and tx_buf.
Second, all members of the struct spi_ioc_transfer have to be initialized with a valid value. Otherwise they just point to some memory address and the underlying process is accessing arbitrary data, thus leading to unknown behavior.
Third, why do you use a for loop with ioctl? You already tell ioctl you haven an array of spi_ioc_transfer structs. So all defined transaction will be performed with one ioctl call.
Fourth ioctl needs a pointer to your struct array. So ioctl should look like this:
ret = ioctl(fd, SPI_IOC_MESSAGE(num_tr), &mesg);
You see there is room for improvement in your code.
This is how I do it in a c++ library for the raspberry pi. The whole library will soon be on github. I'll update my answer when it is done.
void SPIBus::spiReadWrite(std::vector<std::vector<uint8_t> > &data, uint32_t speed,
uint16_t delay, uint8_t bitsPerWord, uint8_t cs_change)
{
struct spi_ioc_transfer transfer[data.size()];
int i = 0;
for (std::vector<uint8_t> &d : data)
{
//see <linux/spi/spidev.h> for details!
transfer[i].tx_buf = reinterpret_cast<__u64>(d.data());
transfer[i].rx_buf = reinterpret_cast<__u64>(d.data());
transfer[i].len = d.size(); //number of bytes in vector
transfer[i].speed_hz = speed;
transfer[i].delay_usecs = delay;
transfer[i].bits_per_word = bitsPerWord;
transfer[i].cs_change = cs_change;
i++
}
int status = ioctl(this->fileDescriptor, SPI_IOC_MESSAGE(data.size()), &transfer);
if (status < 0)
{
std::string errMessage(strerror(errno));
throw std::runtime_error("Failed to do full duplex read/write operation "
"on SPI Bus " + this->deviceNode + ". Error message: " +
errMessage);
}
}
I am trying to send data between a client/Server, the data looks like
typedef Struct Message
{ int id;
int message_length;
char* message_str;
}message;
I am trying to Write and Read this message between a client and server constantly updating the elements in this struct. I have heard Writev may do the trick. i want to send a
message to the server and then the server pulls out the elements and uses those elements as conditionals to execute the proper method?
Assuming you want to do the serialization yourself and not use Google Protocol Buffers or some library to handle it for you, I'd suggest writing a pair of functions like this:
// Serializes (msg) into a flat array of bytes, and returns the number of bytes written
// Note that (outBuf) must be big enough to hold any Message you might have, or there will
// be a buffer overrun! Modifying this function to check for that problem and
// error out instead is left as an exercise for the reader.
int SerializeMessage(const struct Message & msg, char * outBuf)
{
char * outPtr = outBuf;
int32_t sendID = htonl(msg.id); // htonl will make sure it gets sent in big-endian form
memcpy(outPtr, &sendID, sizeof(sendID));
outPtr += sizeof(sendID);
int32_t sendLen = htonl(msg.message_length);
memcpy(outPtr, &sendLen, sizeof(sendLen));
outPtr += sizeof(sendLen);
memcpy(outPtr, msg.message_str, msg.message_length); // I'm assuming message_length=strlen(message_str)+1 here
outPtr += msg.message_length;
return (outPtr-outBuf);
}
// Deserializes a flat array of bytes back into a Message object. Returns 0 on success, or -1 on failure.
int DeserializeMessage(const char * inBuf, int numBytes, struct Message & msg)
{
const char * inPtr = inBuf;
if (numBytes < sizeof(int32_t)) return -1; // buffer was too short!
int32_t recvID = ntohl(*((int32_t *)inPtr));
inPtr += sizeof(int32_t);
numBytes -= sizeof(int32_t);
msg.id = recvID;
if (numBytes < sizeof(int32_t)) return -1; // buffer was too short!
int32_t recvLen = ntohl(*((int32_t *)inPtr));
inPtr += sizeof(int32_t);
numBytes -= sizeof(int32_t);
msg.message_length = recvLen; if (msg.message_length > 1024) return -1; /* Sanity check, just in case something got munged we don't want to allocate a giant array */
msg.message_str = new char[msg.message_length];
memcpy(msg.message_str, inPtr, numBytes);
return 0;
}
With these functions, you are now able to convert a Message into a simple char-array and back at will. So now all you have to do is send the char-array over the TCP connection, receive it at the far end, and then Deserialize the array back into a Message struct there.
One wrinkle with this is that your char arrays will be variable-length (due to the presence of a string which can be different lengths), so your receiver will need some easy way to know how many bytes to receive before calling DeserializeMessage() on the array.
An easy way to handle that is to always send a 4-byte integer first, before sending the char-array. The 4-byte integer should always be the size of the upcoming array, in bytes. (Be sure to convert the integer to big-endian first, via htonl(), before sending it, and convert it back to native-endian on the receiver via htonl() before using it).
Okay, I'll take a stab at this. I'm going to assume that you have a "message" object on the sending side and what you want to do is somehow send it across to another machine and reconstruct the data there so you can do some computation on it. The part that you may not be clear on is how to encode the data for communications and then decode it on the receiving side to recover the information. The simplistic approach of just writing the bytes contained in a "message" object (i.e. write(fd, msg, sizeof(*msg), where "msg" is a pointer to an object of type "message") won't work because you will end up sending the value of a virtual address in the memory of one machine to different machine and there's not much you can do with that on the receiving end. So the problem is to design a way to pass an two integers and a character string bundled up in a way that you can fish them back out on the other end. There are, of course, many ways to do this. Does this describe what you are trying to do?
You can send structs over socket, but you have to serialize them before sending the struct using boost serialization.
Here is a sample code :
#include<iostream>
#include<unistd.h>
#include<cstring>
#include <sstream>
#include <boost/archive/text_oarchive.hpp>
#include <boost/archive/text_iarchive.hpp>
using namespace std;
typedef struct {
public:
int id;
int message_length;
string message_str;
private:
friend class boost::serialization::access;
template <typename Archive>
void serialize(Archive &ar, const unsigned int vern)
{
ar & id;
ar & message_length;
ar & message_str;
}
} Message;
int main()
{
Message newMsg;
newMsg.id = 7;
newMsg.message_length = 14;
newMsg.message_str="Hi ya Whats up";
std::stringstream strData;
boost::archive::text_oarchive oa(strData);
oa << newMsg;
char *serObj = (char*) strData.str().c_str();
cout << "Serialized Data ::: " << serObj << "Len ::: " << strlen(serObj) << "\n";
/* Send serObj thru Sockets */
/* recv serObj from socket & deserialize it */
std::stringstream rcvdObj(serObj);
Message deserObj;
boost::archive::text_iarchive ia(rcvdObj);
ia >> deserObj;
cout<<"id ::: "<<deserObj.id<<"\n";
cout<<"len ::: "<<deserObj.message_length<<"\n";
cout<<"str ::: "<<deserObj.message_str<<"\n";
}
you can compile the program by
g++ -o serial boost.cpp /usr/local/lib/libboost_serialization.a
you must have libboost_serialization.a statically compiled in your machine.
Keeping the sockets 'blocking' will be good and you have to devise for reading these structs from recv buffer.