I am trying to write a small driver program on a Beaglebone Black that needs to send a signal with timings like this:
I need to send 360 bits of information. I'm wondering if I can turn off all interrupts on the board for a duration of 500µs while I send the signal. I have no idea if I can just turn off all the interrupts like that. Searches have been unkind to me so far. Any ideas how I might achieve this? I do have some prototypes in assembly language for the signal, but I'm pretty sure its being broken by interrupts.
So for example, I'm hoping I could have something like this:
disable_irq();
/* asm code to send my bytes */
reenable_irq();
What would the bodies of disable_irq() and reenable_irq() look like?
The calls you would want to use are local_irq_disable() and local_irq_enable() to disable & enable IRQs locally on the current CPU. This also has the effect of disabling all preemption on the CPU.
Now lets talk about your general approach. If I understand you correctly, you'd like to bit bang your protocol over a GPIO with timing accurate to < 1/3 us.
This will be a challenge. Tests show that the Beaglebone black GPIO toggle frequency is going to max out at ~2.78MHz writing directly to the SoC IO registers in kernel mode (~0.18 us minimum pulse width).
So, although this might be achievable by the thinnest of margins by writing atomic code in kernel space, I propose another concept:
Implement your custom serial protocol on the SPI bus.
Why?
The SPI bus can be clocked up to 48MHz on the Beaglebone Black, its buffered and can be used with the DMA engine. Therefore, you don't have to worry about disabling interrupts and monopolizing your CPU for this one interface. With a timing resolution of ~0.021us (# 48MHz), you should be able to achieve your timing needs with an acceptable margin of error.
With the bus configured for Single Channel Continuous Transfer Transmit-Only Master mode and 30-bit word length (2 30-bit words for each bit of your protocol):
To write a '0' with your protocol, you'd write the 2 word sequence - 17 '1's followed by 43 '0's - on SPI (#48MHz).
To write a '1' with your protocol, you'd write the 2 word sequence - 43 '1's followed by 17 '0's - on SPI (#48MHz).
From your signal timmings it's easy to figure out that SPI or other serial peripheral can not reach your demand. In your timmings, encoding is based on the width of the pulse. So let's get to the point:
Q1 Could you turn off all interrupts for a duration of 500µs?
A: 0.5ms is quite a long time in embedded system. ISR is born to enable the concurrency of multi-task and improve the real-time capability. Your should keep in mind that ISR and context-switch(in some chip architecture) are all influenced by global interrupt.
But if your top priority is to perform the timmings, and the real-time window of other tasks are acceptable, of cause you can disable the global interrupt in the duration. Even longer. If not, don't do ATOM operation in such a long time.
Q2 How?
A: For a certain chip, there's asm instruction for open/close global interrupt undoubtedly. Find the instructions or the APIs provided by your OS, do the 3 steps below(pseudocode):
state_t tState = get_interrupt_status( );
disable_interrupt( );
... /*your operation here*/
resume_interrupt( tState );
Related
Overview:
I spent a while trying to think of how to formulate this question. To narrow the scope, I wanted to provide my initial HW requirements in the form of a ‘real life’ example application.
I understand that clock speed is probably relative, in the sense that it is a case by case basis. For example, your requirement for a certain speed may be impacted on by the on-chip peripherals offered by the MCU. As an example, you may spend (n) cycles servicing an ISR for an encoder, or, you could pick an MCU that has a QEI input to do it for you (to some degree), which in turn, may loosen your requirement?
I am not an expert, and am very much still learning, so please call me out if I use an incorrect term, or completely misinterpret something. I assure you; the feedback is welcome!
Example Application:
This application is relatively simple. It can be thought of as a non-blocking state machine, where each ‘iteration’ of the machine must complete within 20ms. A single iteration of this machine has 4 main tasks:
Decode a serial payload, consisting of 32 bytes. The length is fixed at 32 bytes, payload is dynamic, baud is 115200bps (See Task #2 below)
Read 4 incremental shaft encoder signals, which are coupled with 4 DC Motors, 1 encoder for each motor (See Task #1 Below)
Determine the position of 4 limit switches. ISR driven, trigger on rising edge for each switch.
Based on the 3 categories of inputs above, the MCU will output 4 separate PWM signals # 50Hz (20ms) to a motor controller for its next set of movements. (See Task #3 below)
From an IO perspective, I know that the MCU is on the hook for reading 8 digital signals (4 quadrature encoders, 4 limit switches), and decoding a serial frame of 32 bytes over UART.
Based on that data, the MCU will output 4 independent PWM signals, with a pulse width of [1000usec -3200usec], per motor, to the motor controller.
The Question:
After all is said and done, I am trying to think through how I can map my requirements into MCU selection, solely from a speed point of view.
It’s easy for me to look through the datasheet and say, this chip meets my requirements because it has (n) UARTS, (n) ISR input pins, (n) PWM outputs etc. But my projects are so small that I always assume the processor is ‘fast enough’. Aside from my immediate peripheral needs, I never really look into the actual MCU speed, which is an issue on my end.
To resolve that, I am trying to understand what goes into selecting a particular clock speed, based on the needs of a given application. Or, another way to say it, which is probably wrong, but how to you quantify the theoretical load on the processor for that specific application?
Additional Information
Task #1: Encoder:
Each of the 4 motors have different tasks within the system, but regardless, they are the same brand/model motor, and have a maximum RPM of 230. My assumption is, if at its worst case, one of the motors is spinning at 230 RPM, that would mean, at full quadrature resolution (count rising/falling for channel A/B) the 1000PPR encoder would generate 4K interrupts per revolution. As such, the MCU would have to service those interrupts, potentially creating a bottleneck for the system. For example, if (n) number of clock cycles are required to service the ISR, and for 1 revolution of 1 motor, we expect 4K interrupts, that would be … 230(RPM) * 4K (ISR per rev) == 920,000 interrupts per minute? Yikes! And then I guess you could just extrapolate and say, again, at it’s worst case, where each of the 4 motors are spinning at 230 RPM, there’s a potential that, if the encoders are full resolution, the system would have to endure 920K interrupts per minute for each encoder. So 920K * 4 motors == 3,680,000 interrupts per minute? I am 100% sure I am doing something wrong, so please, feel free to set me straight.
Task #2: Serial Decoding
The MCU will require a dedicated HW serial port to decode a packet of 32 bytes, which repeats, with different values, every 7ms. Baud rate will be set to 115200bps.
Task #3: PWM Output
Based on the information from tasks 1 and 2, the MCU will write to 4 separate PWM outputs. The pulse for each output will be between 1000-3200usec with a frequency of 50Hz.
You need to separate real-time critical parts from the rest of the application. For example, the actual reception of an UART frame is somewhat time-critical if you do so interrupt-based. But the protocol decoding is not critical at all unless you are expected to respond within a certain time.
Decode a serial payload, consisting of 32 bytes.
You can either do this the old school way with interrupts filling up a buffer, or you could look for a part with DMA, which is fairly common nowadays. DMA means that you won't have to consider some annoying, relatively low frequency UART interrupt disrupting other tasks.
Read 4 incremental shaft encoder signals
I haven't worked with such encoders so I can't tell how time-critical they are. If you have to catch every single interrupt and your calculations are correct, then 3,680,000 interrupts per minute is still not that bad. 60*60/3680000 = 978us. So roughly one interrupt every millisecond, that's not a "hard real-time" requirement. If that's the only time-critical thing you need to do, then any shabby 8-bitter running at 8MHz could keep up.
Determine the position of 4 limit switches
You don't mention timing here but I assume this is something that could be polled cyclically by a low priority cyclic timer.
the MCU will output 4 separate PWM signals
Not a problem, just pick one with a decent PWM hardware peripheral. You should just need to update some PWM duty cycle registers now and then.
Overall, this doesn't sound all that real-time critical. I've done much worse real-time projects with icky 8 and 16 bitters. However, each time I did, I always regret not picking a faster MCU, because you always come up with stuff to add as the project/product goes on.
It sounds like your average mainstream Cortex M0+ would be a good candidate for this project. Clock it at ~48MHz and you'll have plenty of CPU power. Cortex M4 or larger if you actually expect floating point math (I don't quite see why you'd need that though).
Given the current component crisis, be careful with which brand you pick though! In particular stay clear of STM32, since ST can't produce them right now and you might end up waiting over a year until you get parts.
The answer to the question is "experience". But intuitively your example is not particularly taxing - although there are plenty of ways you could mess it up. I once worked on a project that ran on a 200MHz C5502 DSP at near 100% CPU load. The application now runs on a 72MHz Cortex-M3 at only 60% with additional functionality and I/O not present in the original implementation..
Your application is I/O bound; depending on data rates (and critically interrupt rates), I/O seldom constitutes the highest CPU load, and DMA, hardware FIFOs, input capture timer/counters, and hardware PWM etc. can be used to minimise the I/O impact. I shan't go into it in detail; #Lundin has already done that.
Note also that raw processor speed is important for data or signal processing and number crunching - but what I/O generally requires is deterministic real-time response, and that is seldom simply a matter of MHz or MIPS - you will get more deterministic and possibly faster response from an 8bit AVR running at a few MHz than you can guarantee from a 500MHz application processor running Linux - and it won't take 30 seconds to boot!
ST has some application notes that talk about emulating a parallel bus using DMA to GPIO. I appreciate that, but it doesn't answer important questions. I am looking through the reference manual, and I can't seem to find clarify the things that I am concerned about.
I am most concerned about the jitter. The reference manual repeatedly states, that when DMA is triggered (e.g., by a timer), the DMA controller will read the memory and transfer the value to the peripheral. That might be fine with peripherals that have their own FIFO. There, when space is available in the FIFO, DMA is triggered and fills the FIFO. That will probably happen before the FIFO runs empty.
But with GPIO, if the DMA channels doesn't have a FIFO itself, the data will not be ready when the timer triggers and it needs to be fetched from SRAM. So between the timer triggering and between the value actually arriving in the GPIO output register, some time may pass. This might be measurable when looking at the clock output by the timer and the GPIO pins. The DMA controller has to compete for access to the SRAM with the running program, so certain activities by the program may increase the jitter.
Maybe that is a colossal oversight on my part, but ST's reference manual doesn't seem mention a FIFO as part of the DMA. If that is the case, that would result in jitter which may impact performance at higher frequencies.
I need to toggle 3 to 4 pins synchronously to a clock from 100kHz to 1MHz. I am considering DMA to GPIO and also abusing a QuadSPI controller. I am currently testing on a STM32L4 but I'm also considering STM32F4 or even F1.
DMA to/from GPIOit is just memory-to-memory transfer. Many STM32 uCs have built in DMA FIFOs - but they will have not use here.
The core has always priority over the DMA so if it can be the issue (very unlikely) place the core accesible data (this data which uC will access when DMA is active in the separate memory area - for example CCM (if your uC has one)
Answering the question
memory to/FROM GPIO is very reliable - I personally did not have any problems with it.
If your clock can be anything between 100 kHz and 1 MHz, I guess you're not worried about jitter in the clock itself, only jitter in the data versus the clock. If your clock need not be continuous, a novel idea then is to do some preprocessing of the data to include the clock signal as part of the GPIO data. Then you could trigger the DMA at regular intervals using a timer, and you'll get the data frequency on the bus at half that rate with perfect alignment between clock and data.
So if you you want to send the four-bit data 5 6 B D with data valid on the positive clock edge, prepare the DMA buffer as so: 05 15 06 16 0B 1B 0D 1D and connect the GPIO pin 4 as the clock. Leave a final byte in the buffer to reset the clock/bus to idle state, if you need.
You can of course extend the idea and incorporate control signals such as chip selects and tri-state signals for external buffers, if needed.
Also take note that not all DMA blocks may have access to the AHB bus which is holding the GPIO registers. For example on STM32F40x, only DMA2 can be used (this is what got me, until I read this answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/46619315/6552613).
I haven't fully explored this space yet, but, by disabling interrupts and polling for interrupt flags in my main loop, it's made the jitter on my GPIO DMA basically disappear! Granted it might just be the set of interrupts have enabled, but everything down to the systick timer was killing me. By polling the interrupts in the main loop it seems to have fixed my issue.
Note that this is on an STM32F042, and I never exceed 6 MHz for my period. When I try to, i.e. try to go to 8 MHz sampling out, everything falls apart. YMMV
We have an application which runs on PIC24H, we would like to port it to another MCU, preferably ARM Cortex. Application is extremely time critical, meaning that we need extremely deterministic code behaviour. In short, there are pulses which are obtained via special hardware to GPIO pins, data is analyzed right away. Processing of data is not complex(we don't need a beefy cpu/mcu to do it). After analyzing the data GPIO output pins are written to their values.
App in 3 short lines:
process input pins
determine pattern within processing of input pins
based on the received pattern write output pins
PIC24H is working at 40MHz, we can toggle the pin in 25ns, we would be grateful with at least 2x speed for future upgrades. So MCU which can run deterministic code and toggle pins with at least 80MHz (12.5ns) would be just fine. We don't need toggling of the pins at constant fast rate, we need a mcu which can toggle it in less than 25ns. We can't waste cycles while toggling, if one cycle is off we loose synchronization. Everything must be done in one cycle precision(or two but constant two cycles), so code should be 100% deterministic.
Please let me know if I'm missing something or if what we need can be done using some other methods on Cortex-M. Just keep in mind that if one cycle is lost(due cache or similar) we loose signal sync and app will not do it's work right or at all.
Thanks!
Br
According to this blog post, the interrupt latency for Cortex-M ranges from 12 to 16 cycles (assuming you are not using FPU registers) with best-case memories. M0 and M0+ are slower than M3/M4/M7. On top of this, you need to add the GPIO access times (and watch out for different clock frequencies between the core and the peripherals. Cortex-M7 will suppport higher clock speeds than M3/M4.
It still isn't clear how many cycles are consumed in recognising a pattern, and how an interrupt is useful in doing this - generally a low latency interface function like this would be an obvious target for dedicated hardware, but since you have an existing software solution it seems the problem is mis-specified.
Providing you avoid accessing any 'slow' peripherals which might stall the bus, the interrupt latency should be deterministic - any specific device should have documentation which covers this.
NXP have an application note which describes some of the detail of how to measure what is going on.
I'm attempting to interface an STM32F303 Nucleo with an AD7748-4 ADC. Datasheet for the ADC:
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/ad7768-7768-4.pdf
The issue is, the ADC DOES NOT output the converted value through the SPI port, but rather employs a Data Ready Signal (DRDY), a Data Clock (DCLK), and a combination of 4 Data Outputs (DOUT0-DOUT3). The output streams 96 bits serially through one wire if I set it up that way, but timing is critical in my application and I need to clock the data in using DOUT0 to DOUT2, which would each output 32 bits. If I were serially streaming the data, I could trick the SPI port into reading it, but I'm not. The ADC is running at 20MHz, so DCLK will be operating at the same frequency. The Nucleo runs at a maximum of 72MHz, but when the DAM is utilized, it sets the clock to 64MHz.
In the STM manual, it describes a "GPIO port input data register (GPIOx_IDR) (x = A..H)" as being a read only register - my understanding is that the lower 16 bits can store an inputted value up to 16 bits (most likely for memory data R/W) - so the question is, how can I configure the GPIO to read in the data? I'm at a slight impass here. My instinct tells me that the Nucleo may not be fast enough to read the data coming from the ADC... Any ideas? All being written in C/C++ basically bare metal... I'm new to the Nucleo, haven't written code in 4 years - pardon any lapse in knowledge...
If DCLK works at 20Mhz, the uC is obviously not fast enough (you have about 3 instructions between each cycle, so even assembly language would be difficult to implement...). As I am not familiar with the stm architecture, I can only suggest a trick that will maybe spark some ideas in your head. Rather than using a crystal for the ADC, use a timer from the STM that is connected to an output pin, and clock the ADC using that pin (MCLK). When configuring the ADC using spi, idle mode, etc. you can leave this clock signal at 20Mhz. But when you need a sample from the ADC, stop the STM timer and clock the ADC "manually". (you practically control the DCLK signal). After your conversion routine is over, restart the timer at 20Mhz.
I need to create a driver for a flash memory chip connected to a STM32 Cortex M3 MCU. The chip is controlled via an SPI bus. I intended to use integrated SPI peripheral of the MCU, but unfortunately it only supports 8- or 16-bit data packets while the flash chip commands are 14 bit long. Thus, I have to implement the protocol from scratch using GPIOs. My question is: what is the right way to ensure correct timings of the signals? I currently think of inserting delays between asserting and deasserting GPIO lines with interrupts disabled, but it seems fairly unreliable to me. Are there any better methods?
Jeb's answer is the preferred method and you should use the hardware SPI if possible, and if DMA is an option that is nice as well.
If you for some reason find out that you cannot use the hardware SPI, but that you must implement it using "bit-banging" over GPIO, you should check what options there are available in the timer/PWM hardware on the MCU. You cannot and should not use blunt "hobbyist burn-away delays" as in the link you posted, the real-time performance will be crap and you will occupy the CPU 100%.
Most MCU timers come with a pin output feature, that would allow a pin to change state when the timer elapses. The pseudo code would then be:
Determine if the next bit to send is 1 or 0.
Set the MCU polarity register accordingly, so that it will switch the pin to a high or low level.
When the timer elapses, you need to set the polarity once again, likely through an interrupt. How to do this is very hardware-dependent.
At the same time as you bit-bang the data (MOSI), you also need to generate the clock and chip select. The clock can be generated in the same way as the data, or possibly through a PWM signal if that option is available. Chip select is the easiest part as you only need to pull a pin low during the data transmission.
Finally, there is most likely some application note or official example over how to write a software SPI for your particular MCU.
I would recommend to use the build in SPI and DMA if possible!
You could remapping your data into an array of bytes with a size of a multiple of 14bits.
So you have to send a multiple of 7*4Bits=28bytes each time.
Then you can use the standard SPI with 8Bit-size.
But this should be much faster with SPI/DMA than bit banging the GPIO's.
Some devices that use obscure data lengths are designed so that at the start of a transaction they will either ignore all "0" bits that are clocked in before the first "1", or all "1" bits that are clocked in before the first "0". If your device happens to be designed in such a fashion, you may be able to use 8- or 16-bit SPI mode by clocking out two "junk" bits along with the bits of interest.