I am programming DAC peripheral of stm32f2xx. I have an array of bytes (Sound) & I would like to generate signal with sample rate = 8K.
Now my question is:
How do I specify sample rate?
Note:
I googled alot. I am only getting trangle wave generation and sine wave generation using DMA. I dont want to use DMA.
Thanks in advance for help...
Regards,
It's not practical to play waveforms out of the DAC without using DMA. You set up the DMA with your samples, and you set up the DAC to use a timer as the trigger. Then you set up your timer to trigger at your desired sample rate.
I would agree with TJD that in general it is not practical to do so without DMA, however it is not impossible, particularly at a low sample rate.
One could use a timer set to trigger every 1/8000th of a second as the fixed time base. From there, the interrupt routine would need to load up the next sample into the DAC. The sample rate could be varied by changing the timer's time base.
It would be a similar effort to write the code to configure the DMA controller when compared to writing the code to move the correct sample into the buffer. However, the DMA approach would be more reliable, likely posses less jitter in the sample rate, and frees up the core to execute other code that may be needed. In fact, with the TIM/DMA/DACs setup, you may be able to halt the core or enter a sleep mode that keeps peripheral clocks running.
yes, i agree with TJD too.
using DMA is effecient as well as free up CPU for other task [good].
managing the timing in software(core with busy loop) [bad] will not produce good results. (so, use timer for timing [good]).
now for copying, you have to dedicate CPU to do the copying after a specific interval of time (from busy-loop or timer timeout) to DAC register.[bad]
at the end i recommend, connect DMA and timer, and on timeout, DMA will copy data to DAC register [good]. this solution only appear hard but actually much easier to work with when setup'd.
[note: written in pov of someone who is trying to understand/start on something like this]
Related
I'm working on a project that a series of duty cycles must be measured. A sample of related waveforms is displayed below:
As you can see from the signal, the frequency is too high, and calculating it using bit functions is impossible. In controller's tech website here, they used the timer's input capture modes and rising-falling edges interrupts for calculating the difference between two captures of the timer.But this method is too slow and cannot fulfill our desires for high-frequency signals.
The other solution is to use DMA for fast transferring the capture data to the memory. But in STM32cubemx it is not possible to assigned two DMAs for two captuers of a timer as you can see below:
Could some one give me a suggestion for this issue?
Using the DMA channel is not likely to provide a good solution for fast signals since the memory buss is shared between the DMA controller and CPU, so predictable timing over the capture event time is not guaranteed. Also, the timing relationship between the DMA transfers and the external signal will be difficult to resolve. So I'd say "no" to your question.
With 16-bit timers that can run up to 120 MHz, the STM32 featured timers is your best choice. An 800kHz signal is not considered too fast for these critters! The trick is how you make use of the timers. You want to use the input capture mode. Capture several samples of logic high signal times, then average these numbers, do the same for logic low signal times, then add for total timer ticks, then multiply this by the timer tick period for the external signal period.
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.
This is my first post at this forum.
I am developing a MIDI sequencer device based on a STM32F429DISCOVERY board running at stock 180MHz. In order to send midi messages the USART1 is configured for 31250 bauds and the appropriate DMA is configured to transfer a 3 byte array stored in ram to the USART. I was doing tests of even timing of sending of midi messages, by configuring the Timer 4 update interrupt, within the service routine of which I am enabling the memory-to-peripheralUSART1 DMA operation. This gives me a periodic sending of a 3 byte message over the USART1 peripheral.
Everything works great and with correct frequency and correct data, but i have a small issue which i have been researching for few days now and have not been able to correct. To make things clearer, within the timer interrupt routine I set a led on the discovery (RG13) to momentarily blink and connected 1 channel of an oscilloscope to the led pin. The second channel of the oscilloscope is connected to the USART TX pin. Now, when the code is executed, i can see the led pulse on the oscilloscope's CH1, followed by the USART serial data on the CH2. But for some reason the time between the led pulse and the beginning of the serial data transfer fluctuates with every sending of the data. It increments with every sending, going from around 1uS to around 30uS, and then jumps back to 1.
I noticed that if i slightly change the USART baudrate, the time fluctuation between the pulse and the data sending changes in pattern, going faster or slower and with longer or shorter range.
I have tried resetting all the apropriate flags from USART as well as DMA, have tried to disable/enable the timer, played with interrupt priorities, but nothing has worked to get rid of the time fluctuation.
As you can imagine, the stability of this is crucial for a MIDI sequencer hardware application as it bases the timing of the musical events, which must be rock solid.
I have also tried using the USART by itself without DMA, manually sending every byte, basically same results. Interrupt driven USART TX exhibited likewise results.
The only thing which seemed to work to get rid of the time fluctuation of USART TX response is, before every sending operation to deinitialize USART and the DMA modules and reinitialize them again. This seemed to give a stable operation but inserts a long delay between the timer interrupt and the actual sending of the data over the USART, which is unacceptable.
If anyone has any thoughts on this or have done anything similar, I need an advice on where to look at.
Thanks a lot in advance!
Best regards,
Konstantin
Even based on your detailed description, there are various possibilities for errors, so best I can do is guess:
Maybe just one of the TIM setting is just slightly wrong: What about the timer's auto-reload register (TIM4_ARR)?
The period setting must be just one unit lower than the desired transmission period divided by the (possibly prescaled) clock period (see details upcounting/downcounting spec).
Now, if the reload value were just equal to the value instead, the second trigger would be late by one tiny period, the third trigger twice as much and so on (which may look like what you described).
This "ramp of delays" would then rise until the unwanted delay sums up to one UART bit period (which happens to be 32uS for 31250 bauds, quite near to the "around 30uS" you described). The next trigger would then just fit for the neighbouring UART bit cycle (without much delay).
Comparing this hypothesis with your other findings...
Changing the UART baud rate would preserve the fundamental error, but the duration of the irritating delay changes. It can appear to change its sign ("faster or slower"), depending on the beat characteristics between the (actual) TIM period and the UART bit period. => OK
Changing the event processing from DMA to IRQ handler wouldn't change much about the problem but only the "phase" of the initial delay (by the time the CPU needs to execute a different ST library function). => OK
Disabling and re-enabling the UART might have changed the behaviour because the UART clock might re-synchronize newly with the underlying bus clock (APB2 for USART2), so the delay after the TIM trigger would appear constant, and you wouldn't notice fluctuations. => OK
I'm working on a C program that transmits samples over USB3 for a set period of time (1-10 us), and then receives samples for 100-1000 us. I have a rudimentary pthread implementation where the TX and RX routines are each handled as a thread. The reason for this is that in order to test the actual TX routine, the RX needs to run and sample before the transmitter is activated.
Note that I have very little C experience outside of embedded applications and this is my first time dabbling with pthread.
My question is, since I know exactly how many samples I need to transmit and receive, how can I e.g. start the RX thread once the TX thread is done executing and vice versa? How can I ensure that the timing stays consistent? Sampling at 10 MHz causes some harsh timing requirements.
Thanks!
EDIT:
To provide a little more detail, my device is a bladeRF x40 SDR, and communication to the device is handled by a FX3 microcontroller, which occurs over a USB3 connection. I'm running Xubuntu 14.04. Processing, scheduling and configuration however is handled by a C program which runs on the PC.
You don't say anything about your platform, except that it supports pthreads.
So, assuming Linux, you're going to have to realize that in general Linux is not a real-time operating system, and what you're doing sure sounds as if has real-time timing requirements.
There are real-time variants of Linux, I'm not sure how they'd suit your needs. You might also be able to achieve better performance by doing the work in a kernel driver, but then you won't have access to pthreads so you're going to have to be a bit more low-level.
Thought I'd post my solution.
While the next build of the bladeRF firmware and FPGA image will include the option to add metadata (timestamps) to the synchronous interface, until then there's no real way in which I can know at which time instants certain events occurred.
What I do know is my sampling rate, and exactly how many samples I need to transmit and receive at which times relative to each other. Therefore, by using conditional variables (with pthread), I can signal my receiver to start receiving samples at the desired instant. Since TX and RX operations happen in a very specific sequence, I can calculate delays by counting the number of samples and multiplying by the sampling rate, which has proven to be within 95-98% accurate.
This obviously means that since my TX and RX threads are running simultaneously, there are chunks of data within the received set of samples that will be useless, and I have another routine in place to discard those samples.
This is an academic question (I'm not necessarily planning on doing it) but I am curious about how it would work. I'm thinking of a userland software (rather than hardware) solution.
I want to produce PWM signals (let's say for a small number of digital GPIO pins, but more than 1). I would probably write a program which created a Pthread, and then infinitely looped over the duty cycle with appropriate sleep()s etc in that thread to get the proportions right.
Would this not clobber the CPU horribly? I imagine the frequency would be somewhere around the 100 Hz mark. I've not done anything like this before but I can imagine that the constant looping, context switches etc wouldn't be great for multitasking or CPU usage.
Any advice about CPU in this case use and multitasking? FWIW I'm thinking of a single-core processor. I have a feeling answers could range from 'that will make your system unusable' to 'the numbers involved are orders of magnitude smaller than will make an impact to a modern processor'!
Assume C because it seems most appropriate.
EDIT: Assume Linux or some other general purpose POSIX operating system on a machine with access to hardware GPIO pins.
EDIT: I had assumed it would be obvious how I would implement PWM with sleep. For the avoidance of doubt, something like this:
while (TRUE)
{
// Set all channels high
for (int c = 0; x < NUM_CHANNELS)
{
set_gpio_pin(c, 1);
}
// Loop over units within duty cycle
for (int x = 0; x < DUTY_CYCLE_UNITS; x++)
{
// Set channels low when their number is up
for (int c = 0; x < NUM_CHANNELS)
{
if (x > CHANNELS[c])
{
set_gpio_pin(c, 0);
}
}
sleep(DUTY_CYCLE_UNIT);
}
}
Use a driver if you can. If your embedded device has a PWM controller, then fine, else dedicate a hardware timer to generating the PWM intervals and driving the GPIO pins.
If you have to do this at user level, raising a process/thread to a high priority and using sleep() calls is sure to generate a lot of jitter and a poor pulse-width range.
You do not very clearly state the ultimate purpose of this, but since you have tagged this embedded and pthreads I will assume you have a dedicated chip with a linux variant running.
In this case, I would suggest the best way to create PWM output is through your main program loop, since I assume the PWM is part of a greater control application. Most simple embedded applications (no UI) can run in a single thread with periodic updates of the GPIOs in your main thread.
For example:
InitIOs();
while(1)
{
// Do stuff
UpdatePWM();
}
That being said, check your chip specification, in most embedded devices there are dedicated PWM output pins (that can also act as GPIOs) and those can be configured simply in hardware by setting a duty cycle and updating that duty cycle as required. In this case, the hardware will do the work for you.
If you can clarify your situation a bit I can likely give you a more detailed answer.
A better way is probably to use some kind interrupt-driven approach. I suppose it depends on your system, but IIRC Arduino uses interrupts for PWM.
100Hz seems about doable from user space. Typical OS task scheduler timeslices are around 10ms, too, so your CPU will already be multitasking at about that interval. You'll probably want to use a high process priority (low niceness) to ensure the sleeps won't overrun (much), and keep track of actual wall time and potentially adjust your sleep values down based on that feedback to avoid drift. You'll also need to make sure the timer the kernel uses for this on your hardware has a high enough resolution!
If you're very low on RAM and swapping heavily, you could run into problems with your program being paged out to disk. Also, if the kernel is doing other CPU-intensive stuff, this would also introduce unacceptable delays. (other, lower priority user space tasks should be ok) If keeping the frequency constant is critical, you're better off solving this in the kernel (or even running a realtime kernel).
Using a thread and sleeping on an OS that is not an RTOS is not going to produce very accurate or consistent results.
A better method is to use a timer interrupt and toggle the GPIO in the ISR. Unlike using a hardware PWM output on a hardware timer, this approach allows you to use a single timer for multiple signals and for other purposes. You will still probably see more jitter that a hardware PWM and the practical frequency range and pulse resolution will be much lower that is achievable in hardware, but at least the jitter will be in the order of microseconds rather than milliseconds.
If you have a timer, you can set that up to kick an interrupt each time a new PWM edge is required. With some clever coding, you can queue these up so the interrupt handler knows which of many PWM channels and whether a high or low going edge is required, and then schedule itself for the next required edge.
If you have enough of these timers, then its even easier as you can allocate one per PWM channel.
On an embedded controller with a low-latency interrupt response, this can produce surprisingly good results.
I fail to understand why you would want to do PWM in software with all of the inherent timing jitter that interrupt servicing and software interactions will introduce (e.g. the PWM interrupt hits when interrupts are disabled, the processor is servicing a long uninterruptible instruction, or another service routine is active). Most modern microcontrollers (ARM-7, ARM Cortex-M, AVR32, MSP, ...) have timers that can either be configured to produce or are dedicated as PWM generators. These will produce multiple rock steady PWM signals that, once set up, require zero processor input to keep running. These PWM outputs can be configured so that two signals do not overlap or have simultaneous edges, as required by the application.
If you are relying on the OS sleep function to set the time between the PWM edges then this will run slow. The sleep function will set the minimum time between task activations and the time between these will be delayed by the task switches, the presence of a higher priority thread or other kernel function running.