I am programming a microcontroller of the PIC24H family and using xc16 compiler.
I am relaying U1RX-data to U2TX within main(), but when I try that in an ISR it does not work.
I am sending commands to the U1RX and the ISR() is down below. At U2RX, there are databytes coming in constantly and I want to relay 500 of them with the U1TX. The results of this is that U1TX is relaying the first 4 databytes from U2RX but then re-sending the 4th byte over and over again.
When I copy the for loop below into my main() it all works properly. In the ISR(), its like that U2RX's corresponding FIFObuffer is not clearing when read so the buffer overflows and stops reading further incoming data to U2RX. I would really appreciate if someone could show me how to approach the problem here. The variables tmp and command are globally declared.
void __attribute__((__interrupt__, auto_psv, shadow)) _U1RXInterrupt(void)
{
command = U1RXREG;
if(command=='d'){
for(i=0;i<500;i++){
while(U2STAbits.URXDA==0);
tmp=U2RXREG;
while(U1STAbits.UTXBF==1); //
U1TXREG=tmp;
}
}
}
Edit: I added the first line in the ISR().
Trying to draw an answer from the various comments.
If the main() has nothing else to do, and there are no other interrupts, you might be able to "get away with" patching all 500 chars from one UART to another under interrupt, once the first interrupt has ocurred, and perhaps it would be a useful exercise to get that working.
But that's not how you should use an interrupt. If you have other tasks in main(), and equal or lower priority interrupts, the relatively huge time that this interrupt will take (500 chars at 9600 baud = half a second) will make the processor what is known as "interrupt-bound", that is, the other processes are frozen out.
As your project gains complexity, you won't want to restrict main() to this task, and there is no need to for it be involved at all, after setting up the UARTs and IRQs. After that it can calculate π ad infinitum if you want.
I am a bit perplexed as to your sequence of operations. A command 'd' is received from U1 which tells you to patch 500 chars from U2 to U1.
I suggest one way to tackle this (and there are many) seeing as you really want to use interrupts, is to wait until the command is received from U1 - in main(). You then configure, and enable, interrupts for RXD on U2.
Then the job of the ISR will be to receive data from U2 and transmit it thru U1. If both UARTS have the same clock and the same baud rate, there should not be a synchronisation problem, since a UART is typically buffered internally: once it begins to transmit, the TXD register is available to hold another character, so any stagnation in the ISR should be minimal.
I can't write the actual code for you, since it would be supposed to work, but here is some very pseudo code, and I don't have a PIC handy (or wish to research its operational details).
ISR
has been invoked because U2 has a char RXD
you *might* need to check RXD status as a required sequence to clear the interrupt
read the RXD register, which also might clear the interrupt status
if not, specifically clear the interrupt status
while (U1 TXD busy);
write char to U1
if (chars received == 500)
disable U2 RXD interrupt
return from interrupt
ISR's must be kept lean and mean and the code made hyper-efficient if there is any hope of keeping up with the buffer on a UART. Experiment with the BAUD rate just to find the point at which your code can keep up, to help discover the right heuristic and see how far away you are from achieving your goal.
Success could depend on how fast your micro controller is, as well, and how many tasks it is running. If the microcontroller has a built in UART theoretically you should be able to manage keeping the FIFO from overflowing. On the other hand, if you paired up a UART with an insufficiently-powered micro controller, you might not be able to optimize your way out of the problem.
Besides the suggestion to offload the lower-priority work to the main thread and keep the ISR fast (that someone made in the comments), you will want to carefully look at the timing of all of the lines of code and try every trick in the book to get them to run faster. One expensive instruction can ruin your whole day, so get real creative in finding ways to save time.
EDIT: Another thing to consider - look at the assembly language your C compiler creates. A good compiler should let you inline assembly language instructions to allow you to hyper-optimize for your particular case. Generally in an ISR it would just be a small number of instructions that you have to find and implement.
EDIT 2: A PIC 24 series should be fast enough if you code it right and select a fast oscillator or crystal and run the chip at a good clock rate. Also consider the divisor the UART might be using to achieve its rate vs. the PIC clock rate. It is conceivable (to me) that an even division that could be accomplished internally via shifting would be better than one where math was required.
Related
For my application (running on an STM32L082) I need accurate (relative) timestamping of a few types of interrupts. I do this by running a timer at 1 MHz and taking its count as soon as the ISR is run. They are all given the highest priority so they pre-empt less important interrupts. The problem I'm facing is that they may still be delayed by other interrupts at the same priority and by code that disables interrupts, and there seems to be no easy way to know this happened. It is no problem that the ISR was delayed, as long as I know that the particular timestamp is not accurate because of this.
My current approach is to let each ISR and each block of code with interrupts disabled check whether interrupts are pending using NVIC->ISPR[0] and flagging this for the pending ISR. Each ISR checks this flag and, if needed, flags the timestamp taken as not accurate.
Although this works, it feels like it's the wrong way around. So my question is: is there another way to know whether an IRQ was served immediately?
The IRQs in question are EXTI4-15 for a GPIO pin change and RTC for the wakeup timer. Unfortunately I'm not in the position to change the PCB layout and use TIM input capture on the input pin, nor to change the MCU used.
update
The fundamental limit to accuracy in the current setup is determined by the nature of the internal RTC calibration, which periodically adds/removes 32kHz ticks, leading to ~31 µs jitter. My goal is to eliminate (or at least detect) additional timestamping inaccuracies where possible. Having interrupts blocked incidentally for, say, 50+ µs is hard to avoid and influences measurements, hence the need to at least know when this occurs.
update 2
To clarify, I think this is a software question, asking if a particular feature exists and if so, how to use it. The answer I am looking for is one of: "yes it is possible, just check bit X of register Y", or "no it is not possible, but MCU ... does have such a feature, called ..." or "no, such a feature is generally not available on any platform (but the common workaround is ...)". This information will guide me (and future readers) towards a solution in software, and/or requirements for better hardware design.
In general
The ideal solution for accurate timestamping is to use timer capture hardware (built-in to the microcontroller, or an external implementation). Aside from that, using a CPU with enough priority levels to make your ISR always the highest priority could work, or you might be able to hack something together by making the DMA engine sample the GPIO pins (specifics below).
Some microcontrollers have connections between built-in peripherals that allow one peripheral to trigger another (like a GPIO pin triggering timer capture even though it isn't a dedicated timer capture input pin). Manufacturers have different names for this type of interconnection, but a general overview can be found on Wikipedia, along with a list of the various names. Exact capabilities vary by manufacturer.
I've never come across a feature in a microcontroller for indicating if an ISR was delayed by a higher priority ISR. I don't think it would be a commonly-used feature, because your ISR can be interrupted by a higher priority ISR at any moment, even after you check the hypothetical was_delayed flag. A higher priority ISR can often check if a lower priority interrupt is pending though.
For your specific situation
A possible approach is to use a timer and DMA (similar to audio streaming, double-buffered/circular modes are preferred) to continuously sample your GPIO pins to a buffer, and then you scan the buffer to determine when the pins changed. Note that this means the CPU must scan the buffer before it is overwritten again by DMA, which means the CPU can only sleep in short intervals and must keep the timer and DMA clocks running. ST's AN4666 is a relevant document, and has example code here (account required to download example code). They're using a different microcontroller, but they claim the approach can be adapted to others in their lineup.
Otherwise, with your current setup, I don't think there is a better solution than the one you're using (the flag that's set when you detect a delay). The ARM Cortex-M0+ NVIC does not have a feature to indicate if an ISR was delayed.
A refinement to your current approach might be making the ISRs as short as possible, so they only do the timestamp collection and then put any other work into a queue for processing by the main application at a lower priority (only applicable if the work is more complex than the enqueue operation, and if the work isn't time-sensitive). Eliminating or making the interrupts-disabled regions short should also help.
I am new in embedded development and few times ago I red some code about a PIC24xxxx.
void i2c_Write(char data) {
while (I2C2STATbits.TBF) {};
IFS3bits.MI2C2IF = 0;
I2C2TRN = data;
while (I2C2STATbits.TRSTAT) {};
Nop();
Nop();
}
What do you think about the while condition? Does the microchip not using a lot of CPU for that?
I asked myself this question and surprisingly saw a lot of similar code in internet.
Is there not a better way to do it?
What about the Nop() too, why two of them?
Generally, in order to interact with hardware, there are 2 ways:
Busy wait
Interrupt base
In your case, in order to interact with the I2C device, your software is waiting first that the TBF bit is cleared which means the I2C device is ready to accept a byte to send.
Then your software is actually writing the byte into the device and waits that the TRSTAT bit is cleared, meaning that the data has been correctly processed by your I2C device.
The code your are showing is written with busy wait loops, meaning that the CPU is actively waiting the HW. This is indeed waste of resources, but in some case (e.g. your I2C interrupt line is not connected or not available) this is the only way to do.
If you would use interrupt, you would ask the hardware to tell you whenever a given event is happening. For instance, TBF bit is cleared, etc...
The advantage of that is that, while the HW is doing its stuff, you can continue doing other. Or just sleep to save battery.
I'm not an expert in I2C so the interrupt event I have described is most likely not accurate, but that gives you an idea why you get 2 while loop.
Now regarding pro and cons of interrupt base implementation and busy wait implementation I would say that interrupt based implementation is more efficient but more difficult to write since you have to process asynchronous event coming from HW. Busy wait implementation is easy to write but is slower; But this might still be fast enough for you.
Eventually, I got no idea why the 2 NoP are needed there. Most likely a tweak which is needed because somehow, the CPU would still go too fast.
when doing these kinds of transactions (i2c/spi) you find yourself in one of two situations, bit bang, or some form of hardware assist. bit bang is easier to implement and read and debug, and is often quite portable from one chip/family to the next. But burns a lot of cpu. But microcontrollers are mostly there to be custom hardware like a cpld or fpga that is easier to program. They are there to burn cpu cycles pretending to be hardware designs. with i2c or spi you are trying to create a specific waveform on some number of I/O pins on the device and at times latching the inputs. The bus has a spec and sometimes is slower than your cpu. Sometimes not, sometimes when you add the software and compiler overhead you might end up not needing a timer for delays you might be just slow enough. But ideally you look at the waveform and you simply create it, raise pin X delay n ms, raise pin Y delay n ms, drop pin Y delay 2*n ms, and so on. Those delays can come from tuned loops (count from 0 to 1341) or polling a timer until it gets to Z number of ticks of some clock. Massive cpu waste, but the point is you are really just being programmable hardware and hardware would be burning time waiting as well.
When you have a peripheral in your mcu that assists it might do much/most of the timing for you but maybe not all of it, perhaps you have to assert/deassert chip select and then the spi logic does the clock and data timing in and out for you. And these peripherals are generally very specific to one family of one chip vendor perhaps common across a chip vendor but never vendor to vendor so very not portable and there is a learning curve. And perhaps in your case if the cpu is fast enough it might be possible for you to do the next thing in a way that it violates the bus timing, so you would have to kill more time (maybe why you have those Nops()).
Think of an mcu as a software programmable CPLD or FPGA and this waste makes a lot more sense. Unfortunately unlike a CPLD or FPGA you are single threaded so you cant be doing several trivial things in parallel with clock accurate timing (exactly this many clocks task a switches state and changes output). Interrupts help but not quite the same, change one line of code and your timing changes.
In this case, esp with the nops, you should probably be using a scope anyway to see the i2c bus and since/when you have it on the scope you can try with and without those calls to see how it affects the waveform. It could also be a case of a bug in the peripheral or a feature maybe you cant hit some register too fast otherwise the peripheral breaks. or it could be a bug in a chip from 5 years ago and the code was written for that the bug is long gone, but they just kept re-using the code, you will see that a lot in vendor libraries.
What do you think about the while condition? Does the microchip not using a lot of CPU for that?
No, since the transmit buffer won't stay full for very long.
I asked myself this question and surprisingly saw a lot of similar code in internet.
What would you suggest instead?
Is there not a better way to do it? (I hate crazy loops :D)
Not that I, you, or apparently anyone else knows of. In what way do you think it could be any better? The transmit buffer won't stay full long enough to make it useful to retask the CPU.
What about the Nop() too, why two of them?
The Nop's ensure that the signal remains stable long enough. This makes this code safe to call under all conditions. Without it, it would only be safe to call this code if you didn't mess with the i2c bus immediately after calling it. But in most cases, this code would be called in a loop anyway, so it makes much more sense to make it inherently safe.
I am trying to fix an bug found in a mature program for Fujitsu MB90F543. The program works for nearly 10 years so far, but it was discovered, that under some special circumstances it fails to do two things at it's very beginning. One of them is crucial.
After low and high level initialization (ports, pins, peripherials, IRQ handlers) configuration data is read over SPI from EEPROM and status LEDs are turned on for a moment (to turn them a data is send over SPI to a LED driver).
When those special circumstances occur first and only first function invoking just a few EEPROM reads fails and additionally a few of the LEDs that should, don't turn on.
The program is written in C and compiled using Softune v30L32.
Surprisingly it is sufficient to add single __asm(" NOP ") in low level hardware init to make the program work as expected under mentioned circumstances. It is sufficient to turn off 'Control optimization of pointer aliasing' in Optimization settings. Adding just a few lines of code in various places helps too.
I have compared (DIFFed) ASM listings of compiled program for a version with and without __asm(" NOP ") and with both aforementioned optimizer settings and they all look just fine.
The only warning Softune compiler has been printing for years during compilation is as follows:
*** W1372L: The section is placed outside the RAM area or the I/O area (IOXTND)
I do realize it's rather general question, but maybe someone who has a bigger picture will be able to point out possible cause.
Have you got an idea what may cause such a weird behaviour? How to locate the bug and fix it?
During the initialization a few long (about 20ms) delay loops are used. They don't help although they were increased from about 2ms, yet single NOP in any line of the hardware initialization function and even before or after the function helps.
Both the wait loops works. I have checked it using an oscilloscope. (I have added LED turn on before and off after).
I have checked timming hypothesis by slowing down SPI clock from 1MHz to 500kHz. It does not change anything. Slowing down to 250kHz makes watchdog resets, as some parts of the code execute too long (>25ms).
One more thing. I have observed that adding local variables in any source file sometimes makes the problem disappear or reappear. The same concerns initializing uninitialized local variables. Adding a few extra lines of a code in any of the files helps or reveals the problem.
void main(void)
{
watchdog_init();
// waiting for power supply to stabilize
wait; // about 45ms
hardware_init();
clear_watchdog();
application_init();
clear_watchdog();
wait; // about 20ms
test_LED();
{...}
}
void hardware_init (void)
{
__asm("NOP"); // how it comes it helps? - it may be in any line of the function
io_init(); // ports initialization
clk_init();
timer_init();
adc_init();
spi_init();
LED_init();
spi_start();
key_driver_init();
can_init();
irq_init(); // set IRQ priorities and global IRQ enable
}
Could be one of many things but two spring to mind.
Timing.
Maybe the wait is not long enough for power to stabilize and not everything is synced to the clock. The NOP gets everything back in sync.
Alignment.
Perhaps the NOP gets your instructions aligned on a 32 or 64 bit boundary expected by the hardware. (we used to do this a lot on mainframe assemblers as IO operations often expected things to be on double word boundarys).
The problem was solved. It was caused by a trivial bug.
EEPROM's nHOLD and nCS signals were not initialized immediately after MCU's reset, but before the first use of the EEPROM. As a result they were 0's, so active.
This means EEPROM was selected, but waiting on hold. Meantime other transfer using SPI started. After 6 out of 8 CLK pulses EEPROM's nHOLD I/O pin was initialized and brought high. EEPROM was no longer on hold so it clocked in last two bits of a data for an other peripheral. Every subsequent operation on the EEPROM found it being having not synchronized CLK and MOSI.
When I have added NOP or anything other the moment of nHOLD 0->1 edge was shifted to happen after the last CLK pulse. Now CLK-MOSI were in sync.
All I have had to do was to initialize all the EEPROM's SPI lines, in
particular nHOLD and nCS right after the MCU reset.
I'm working on an interrupt handler with a hardware design group and we're trying to figure out where a bug is. I'm reading a chip over the SPI bus at 5khz. The chip loads 4 bytes and triggers a data ready pin.
My interrupt handler wakes up and read 4 bytes off the SPI bus and stores the data in a buffer. Strangely enough though, every 17th read gives 4 bytes of all 0's, which is not right. One of the options we're exploring is that the chip isn't always actually ready when it sends the data ready signal.
So, I know I can't sleep in an interrupt handler, but I'd like to try and introduce a delay of 10 or 20 microseconds. Right now I have a for loop which counts to 100,000 then processes the interrupt. I haven't seen any changes, so I thought I might see if someone has a better technique for busy waiting. Or at least a better way of figuring out how many loop iterations I should go through, as I'm not sure how long this takes, or if the compiler is simply optimizing out the whole thing.
I dont know if you have access to any pseudorandom number generation libraries on your embedded device, but doing large number multiplication followed by mod will definately take some cycles. Instead of simply adding 1 (which is very fast at the hardware level and the compiler can optimize it to shifting since you're doing it a static number of times) use a random number seed (does the system have access to a time clock?) if available and do large number multiplication, modulus or factorial operations, negative number division also takes forever. Remember, division takes the longest at the hardware level. Use that to your advantage.
I assume your compiler will strip out a simple loop.
You should use volatile.
volatile unsigned long i;
for (i=0;i< 1000000; i++)
continue;
I assume also that this will not remove the problem or help you.
I can't believe, that a SPI peripheral has such a bug.
But it's possible that you read to slow the data from the SPI-Fifo.
So some of the received data will be dropped.
You should check the error flags of the SPI module and check the RX-empty RX-fullflags of the SPI.
I'm looking for ways to interface a slow device (an ADC - ~1.2MHz) to my mcf5270 microcontroller, which is a rather fast device (~150MHz). I am using ADC0817, and have tried the following: GPIO read off the data lines, memory mapped access (since the adc is uP compatible).
When mapped as a location in memory, I am using the maximum wait states (15ws, which is about 107ns). The mcf5270 does not support any further waiting without using their bus model (which the ADCs do not support).
Using GPIO, only junk values are read.
Note: The ADC is actually working, and other than reading data the interface to it is functional. I am using C/C++ and assembly.
In short, I am looking for suggestions for ways in which to try to read the data off the ADC0817.
Comments and responses are greatly appreciated.
You could trigger the ADC through some GPIO, do an appropriate number of NOPs and then read the value. Also, you'd need to disable interrupts while doing this.
I think memory mapped should work - normally I would wait for the interrupt from the ADC, then read the byte at the specified address. Since you get an interrupt, there is no wait state needed. Am I missing something? GPIO should also work. How do you know the ADC is working? Can you put a logic analyzer on the data & interrupt to prove the ADC is producing the correct output?
I think from what he's saying MMIO wont' work because he would need more than the maximum number of wait states on the bus to get the glue logic to respond - ie, the A/D won't set its bus pins soon enough for the uC to be happy. That's a problem sometimes.
But the GPIO approach should work. If junk values are being read I assume that you aren't following the timing diagram provided. You'll have to be able to wait certain amounts of time after you signal a read before the data is valid. Check out the datasheet for specifics.