In the Wi-Fi infrastructure mode, as to let stations communicate without creating packet collision, there is a randomized back-off delay in addition to the default delay before emission.
Is it possible to reprogram the Wi-Fi protocol in C or any other language\environment and change things about the details of the implementation, like for example disable completely the randomized back-off or alter it ?
(PS : please excuse me for the weird sentences, not my native language).
Thanks in advance,
If the implementation of the transmission back-off is open source, then there should be no reason why you cannot modify it.
However, this part of the protocol tends to be implemented in the WiFi radio devices, which tend to not be open source, and even if they are, tend to require specialised tools to program and debug. Sometimes there are methods to manage updating the firmware from the drivers (which allows the vendor to ship firmware upgrades via drivers), but not always, and they tend not to be public interfaces.
Related
I need to develop device libraries like uBlox, IMUs, BLE, ecc.. from scratch (almost). Is there any doc or tutorial that can help me?
Question is, how to write a device library using C/C++ (Arduino style if you want) given a datasheet and a platform like STM32 or other ARMs?
Thanks so much
I've tried to read device libraries from Arduino library and various Github, but I would like to have a guide/template to follow (general rules) to write proper device libraries from a given datasheet.
I'm not asking a full definitive guide, just where to start, docs, methods approach.
I've found this one below, but is very basic and quite lite for my targets.
http://blog.atollic.com/device-driver-development-the-ultimate-guide-for-embedded-system-developers
I don't think that you can actually write libraries for STM32 in Arduino style. Most Arduino libraries you can find in the wild promote ease of usage rather than performance. For example, a simple library designed for a specific sensor works well if reading the sensor and reporting the results via serial port is the only thing that firmware must do. When you work on more complex projects where uC has lots to do and satisfy some real time constraints, the general Arduino approach doesn't solve your problems.
The problem with STM32 library development is the complex connection between peripherals, DMA and interrupts. I code them in register level without using the Cube framework and I often find myself digging the reference manual for tables that shows the connections between DMA channels or things like timer master-slave relations. Some peripherals (timers mostly) work similar but each one of them has small differences. It makes development of a hardware library that fits all scenarios practically impossible.
The tasks you need to accomplish are also more complex in STM32 projects. For example, in one of my projects, I fool SPI with a dummy/fake DMA transfer triggered by a timer, so that it can generate periodic 8-pulse trains from its clock pin (data pins are unused). No library can provide you this kind of flexibility.
Still, I believe not all is lost. I think it may be possible to build an hardware abstraction layer (HAL, but not The HAL by ST). So, it's possible to create useful libraries if you can abstract them from the hardware. A USB library can be a good example for this approach, as the STM32 devices have ~3 different USB peripheral hardware variations and it makes sense to write a separate HAL for each one of them. The upper application layer however can be the same.
Maybe that was the reason why ST created Cube framework. But as you know, Cube relies on external code generation tools which are aware of the hardware of each device. So, some of the work can be avoided in runtime. You can't achieve the same result when you write your own libraries unless you also design a similar external code generation tool. And also, the code Cube generates is bloated in most cases. You trade development time for runtime performance and code space.
I assume you will be using a cross toolchain on some platform like Linux, and that the cross toolchain is compatible with some method to load object code on the target CPU. I also assume that you already have a working STM32 board that is documented well enough to figure out how the sensors will connect to the board or to the CPU.
First, you should define what your library is supposed to provide. This part is usually surprisingly difficult. It’s a bit hard to know what it can provide, without knowing a bit about what the hardware sensors are capable of providing. Some iteration on the requirements is expected.
You will need to have access to the documentation for the sensors, usually in the form of the manufacturer’s data sheets. Using the datasheet, and knowing how the device is connected to the target CPU/board, you will need to access the STM32 peripherals that comprise the interface to the sensors. Back to the datasheets, this time for the STM32, to see how to access its peripheral interfaces. That might be simple GPIO bits and bytes, or might be how to use built-in peripherals such as SPI or I2C.
The datasheets for the sensors will detail a bunch of registers, describing the meaning of each, including the meanings of each bit, or group of bits, in certain registers. You will write code in C that accesses the STM32 peripherals, and those peripherals will access the sensors across the electrical interface that is part of the STM32 board.
The workflow usually starts out by writing to a register or three to see if there is some identifiable effect. For example, if you are exercising a digital IO port, you might wire up an LED to see if you can turn it on or off, or a switch to see if you can correctly read its state. This establishes that your code can poke or peek at IO using register level access. There may be existing helper functions to do this work as part of the cross toolchain. Or you might have to develop your own, using pointer indirection to access memory mapped IO. Or there might be specially instructions needed that can only be accessed from inline assembler code. This answer is generic as I don’t know the specifics of the STM32 processor or its typical ecosystem.
Then you move on to more complex operations that might involve sequences of operations, like cycling a bit or two to effect some communication with the device. Or it might be as simple as finding the proper sequence of registers to access for operation of a SPI interface. Often, you will find small chunks of code are complete enough to be re-used by your driver; like how to read or write an individual byte. You can then make that a reusable function to simplify the rest of the work, like accessing certain registers in sequence and printing the contents of register that you read to see if they make sense. Ultimately, you will have two important pieces of information: and understanding of the low-level register accesses needed to create a formal driver, and an understanding of what components and capabilities make up the hardware (ie, you know how the device(s) work).
Now, throw away most of what you’ve done, and develop a formal spec. Use what you now know to include everything that can be useful. Use what you now know to develop a spec that includes an appropriate interface API that your application code can use. Rewrite the driver, armed with the knowledge of how are the pieces work, and taking advantage of the blank canvas afforded you by the fresh rewrite of the spec. Only reuse code that you are completely confident is optimal and appropriate to the format dictated by the spec. Write test code for all of the modules, and use the test code to actually test that the code works and that it conforms to the spec. Re-use the test code every time you modify anything it tests.
On the DroneKit.io page, it mentions using DroneKit Python when creating Ground Control Stations for Windows. However, there appears to be no documentation for this.
Is it meant to simply simulate a com port and act as a proxy for other Ground Control Stations, which just makes it easier hijack the MAVLink?
Also, it mentions Python being used for low-latency processes. This seems to be oxymoronic. Is there a reason that it would be better than just using C/C++ for the purpose of hijacking the MAVLink?
Thanks!
DroneKit-Python can be used either to create a python-based ground station or it can be run on a companion computer. There is no practical difference between the two except how you set up the connection to the vehicle from the computer running the script. The different ways of starting MAVProxy for the different connections are covered in the Getting Started documentation.
The reason that there is no "specific" documentation on using DK-Python for GCS is primarily "marketing". The far bigger market for ground station GCS software is in tablets/phones that will use DK-Android or a future iOS port. DK-Python has been positioned solely as for use in the air interface. Even though there is no "specific" documentation, in fact all the existing documentation is relevant.
Is it meant to simply simulate a com port and act as a proxy for other Ground Control Stations, which just makes it easier hijack the MAVLink?
No. See above.
Also, it mentions Python being used for low-latency processes. This seems to be oxymoronic. Is there a reason that it would be better than just using C/C++ for the purpose of hijacking the MAVLink?
It doesn't mention low-latency processes, so the answer is "invalid question".
You're probably misreading the text "that require a low-latency link". The point here is that if you have dronekit-python running on a companion computer and connected by a fast link you can do real time handling of incoming sensor data. This allows computer vision control of the UAV. However if you run DK-Python on a ground control station you will have a much slower link. You can still control movement of the UAV but the latency will be much higher.
Hope that helps!
In previous versions of Arduino, the limiting 8-bit microcontroller board, it seems that implementing HTTPS (not merely HTTP) was almost impossible. But the newer version of Arduino Due provides 32-bit ARM core - see spec here.
I tried to check several network libraries (libcurl, openssl, yaSSL), but I didn't find anyone that was already ported to work with Arduino Due.
OpenSSL is probably too heavy to be able to run on this processor, but I believe that yaSSL as an embedded library should be possible to do.
Do you have any information of a library that I can use to trigger HTTPS requests on Arduino Due?
Unfortunately this is too long for a comment.
► No out of the box solution
From what I have gathered, there is no straightforward solution for a webserver running on the Atmel SAM3X8E ARM Cortex-M3 CPU that outputs HTTPS out of the box.
Texas Intstruments provides better options at the moment using their boards equipped with a Stellaris Microcontroller ARM Cortex-M3 CPU.
► Alternative
There are several options available that render cryptographic functions, based upon which one could lay out and implement a simple secure communication protocol that communicates with an intermediary device, which in turn facilitates Rapid Application Development and SSL.
This intermediary device, for instance an off-the-shelf 70$ Android smartphone that keeps your project mobile and connected, runs a service on a specified port which in turn communicates with Amazon SQS. Already available. This may sound ugly or tough, but is much easier than doing the programmatic groundwork for a webserver with full TLS 3 support on the Arduino. Given the proper motivation the latter may be easy, but not if one just wants a fast pragmatic solution to one's own project.
► Cryptographic libraries
crypto-arduino-library http://code.google.com/p/crypto-arduino-library/ (not maintained since 2010)
matrixssl
mbed TLS (formerly PolarSSL)
wolfSSL (formerly CyaSSL)
► Discussions
Following is a list of discussions to get you started:
HTTPS alternative on Arduino
SSL from a Microcontroller
Lightweight Packet Encryption
Many of these libraries would still need to be adapted, but community experts can help you with that fairly quickly.
Good luck! If you are at liberty to upload your final project to github then you just gained a thanks and a follower.
IMHO Arduino (including the DUE) is the wrong tool for heavy and/or encrypted web based communication. I would strongly suggest to look for more appropriate hardware in the same size and price range. As soon you get into https you are close enough to also want a lot of the other stuff that real operating systems provide. With other words I suggest to go for something like the Raspi. Similar size and prize but way more powerful, especially it can run Linux. --> HTTPS becomes simple.
The big problem with https support on an arduino is the danger of overloading your processor which could make the project unviable.
Even embedded platform targetted solutions like PolarSSL can eat up too much memory and use too much processing power. Remember that even on the most streamlined implementations, SSL support is going to have to be generalized for wide adoption and will include components that you won't find necessary. There's also the question of which Certificate Authorities you will trust and how you will communicate with them for things like certificate revocation.
I would look instead towards a solution that isn't as broken on the surface for your needs. Something like CurveProtect, which is an implementation of CurveCP.
Of course, your decision will largely be based on what you want to do and how much time you want to spend figuring the problem out. PolarSSL has a footprint that can be as small as 30K (more typically close to 100K).
I am student and I am writting simple application in C99 standard. Program should working on Ubuntu.
I have one problem - I don't know how can I get some Wifi parameters like bandwidth or delay. I haven't any idea how to do this. It is possible to do this using standard functions or any linux API (ech I am windows user)?.
In general, you don't know the bandwidth or delay of a wifi device.
Bandwidth and delay is the type of information from a link.
As far as I know, there is no such information holding in WiFi drivers.
The most link-related information is SINR.
For measuring bandwidth or delay, you should write your own code.
Maybe you should tell us more about your concrete problem. For now, I assume that you are interested in the throughput and latency of a specific wireless link, i.e. a link between two 802.11 stations. This could be a link between an access point and a client or between two ad-hoc stations.
The short answer is that there is no such API. In fact, it is not trivial even to estimate these two link parameters. They depend on the signal quality, on the data rate used by the sending station, on the interference, on the channel utilization, on the load of the computer systems at both ends, and probably a lot of other factors.
Depending on the wireless driver you are using it may be possible to obtain information about the currently used data rate and some packet loss statistics for the station you are communicating with. Have a look at net/mac80211/sta_info.h in your Linux kernel source tree. If you are using MadWifi, you may find useful information in the files below /proc/net/madwifi/ath0/ and in the output of wlanconfig ath0 list sta.
However, all you can do is to make a prediction. If the link quality changes suddenly, your prediction may be entirely wrong.
I have a dsPIC33 with ECAN and wish to establish a protocol (using SDO if possible) in such way that it communicate between terminal software and dsPIC33 where I can perform diagnostics within dsPIC33 and supporting ICs.
I do not know what is required, so what is a low cost way of doing this? I could use a CAN-to-USB device, but I am unsure if this will work. What kind of protocol inside CANUSB wraps around the ASCII-based message?
What hardware can I use? Can it be used to monitor the CAN bus as well? I do not wish to invest in an expensive setup as in Vector or similar heavy-weight solution.
When you purchase CAN interface hardware, it does not typically include software to work with specific upper-level CAN protocols (like CANopen). They do usually come with a set of DLL files that allow you to write custom PC applications to interface with your hardware.
If you do not want to purchase any third-party software, then you must:
Implement a basic CAN driver for the dsPIC33 (transmit and receive a basic frame).
Implement the CANopen SDO protocol on top of your basic driver on the dsPIC33.
Purchase a low-cost CAN<->USB interface (which should come with DLLs that allow you to develop in C, C++ or C#.
Write a PC application using the DLL files which implements the CANopen SDO protocol.
You may want to look for open-source implementations of the protocol. One such implementation is CanFestival. However, I have never used this library.
You can download an open source project for CANopen from DATALINK ENGINEERING as this seems to be just what you need.