Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have to choose a thesis topic soon and I was considering implementing an operating system for an architecture that is not x86 (I'm leaning towards ARM or AVR). The reason I am avoiding x86 is because I would like to gain some experience with embedded platforms and I (possibly incorrectly) believe that the task may be easier when carried out on a smaller scale. Does anyone have any pointers to websites or resources where there are some examples of this. I have read through most if not all of the OSDev questions on stack overflow, and I am also aware of AvrFreaks and OSDev. Additionally if anyone has had experience in this area and wanted to offer some advice in regards to approach or platform it would be much appreciated.
Thanks
Developing an (RT)OS is not a trivial task. It is very educational though. My advice to you is to start hardware independent. PC is a good starting point as it comes with plenty of I/O possibilities and good debugging. If you create a kind-of-virtual machine application, you can create something with simple platform capabilities (console output, some buttons/indicators are a good start). Also, you can use files for instance, to output timing (schedules) If you start on 'bare metal' you'll have to start from scratch. Debugging on a LED (on/off/blinking) is very hard and time consuming. My second advice is to define your scope early: is it the scheduler, the communication mechanisms or the file systems you're interested at... ? Doing all can easily end up in a life long project.
Samek, Miro, Practical UML Statecharts in C/C++ contains some interesting sections on a microkernel. It's one of my favorite books.
Advanced PIC Microcontroller Projects in C: From USB to RTOS with the PIC 18F Series
seems to cover some of your interests; I haven't read it yet though. Operating Systems: Internals and Design Principles may also bring good insights. It covers all aspects from scheduler to network stack. Good luck!
Seems like you should get a copy of Jean Labrosse's book MicroC/OS.
It looks like he may have just updated it too.
http://micrium.com/page/press_room/news/id:40
http://micrium.com/page/home
This is a well documented book describing the inner workings of an RTOS written in C and ported to many embedded processors. You could also run it on a x86, and then cross compile to another processor.
Contiki might be a good thing to research. It's very small, runs on microcontrollers, and is open source. It has a heavy bias towards networking and communications, but perhaps you can skip those parts and focus on the kernel.
If you choose ARM, pick up a copy of the ARM System Developer's Guide (Sloss, Symes, Wright). Link to Amazon
Chapter 11 discusses the implementation of a simple embedded operating system, with great explanations and sample code.
ARM and AVR are chalk and cheese - you've scoped this very wide!
You could produce a very different and more sophisticated OS for ARM than AVR (unless you are talking about AVR32 perhaps - which is a completely different architecture?).
AVR would be far more constraining to the point that the task may be just to trivial for the scope of your thesis. Even specifying ARM does not narrow it down much; low-end ARM parts have small on-chip memories, no MMU and simple peripherals; higher end parts have an MMU, data/instruction caches, often a GPU, sometimes an FPU, hardware Java bytecode execution, and many other complex peripherals. The term 'ARM' covers ARM7, ARM9, ARM11, Cortex M3, Cortex M8, plus a number of architectures intended for use on ASICs and FPGAs - so you need to narrow it down a bit perhaps?
If you choose ARM, take a look at these resources. Especially the Insider's Guides from Hitex, and the "Building bare-metal ARM with GNU", they will help you get your board 'up' and form starting point for your OS.
Silly as it may sound, I was recently interested in the Arduino platform to learn some hacking tricks with the help of more experienced friends. There was also this thread for a guy interested in writing an OS for it (although not his primary intention).
I think the Arduino is very basic and straightforward as an educational tool for such endeavors. It may worth the try checking it out if it fits the bill.
The first thing I recommend is to narrow your thesis topic considerably. OSs are ubiquitous, well researched and developed. What novel idea do you hope to pursue?
That said, the AvrX is a very small microkernel that I've used professionally on AVR microcontrollers. It is written in assembly. One person started to port it to C, but hasn't finished the port. Either finalizing the port to C and/or making a C port to the AVR32 architecture would be valuable.
An OS shall not be tightly coupled to any processor so ARM or x86 doesn't matter.
It will be a bigger topic, if we start discussing if ARM is embedded and x86 is not. Anyway, there are many many places in which x86 processors are used for embedded software development.
I guess most of the kernel code will be just plain C lanugage. There are many free OS that are already available, like for example, embedded linux, Free version of Itron, minix, etc ... It will be a daunting task.
But on the other hand, what you can try is, port embedded linux to platforms in which it is not yet working. This will be really useful to the world.
An RTOS is almost never architecture specific. Refer to any RTOS architecture available on the net and you will notice that a CPU/Hardware abstraction layer abstracts out the CPU. The board specific portions (that deal with peripherals such as com ports, timers etc.) are abstracted by a board support package.
To begin with, get an understanding of how multi-threading works in a RTOS try implementing a simple context switch code for the CPU of your choice; this will involve code for creating a thread context, saving a context and restoring a saved context. This code will form the basis of your hardware abstraction layer. The initial development can easily be accomplished using a software simulator for the selected CPU.
I agree with the poster who suggested reading the book, uCOS-II by Jean Labrosse. Samples of context switch code, especially for x86, should be just a google search away!
http://www.amazon.com/Operating-Systems-Design-Implementation-3rd/dp/0131429388
Pretty solid stuff.
Related
Hey I'm fairly new to coding, I joined a coding club because I have an interest for the growing world of technology. The topics lately have been about computer architecture and in the group we have been talking about ARM processor.
Our club captain notified us of the following:
"Develop a software product for an ARM processor to do a task of your choice. However, before you start the task, you need to send me a paragraph to let me know what you are trying to solve."
Does anyone know of any reference or code examples I could look up? Or any other helpful links
The question does not make a lot of sense. The Arm architecture spans a wide range from fairly small microcontrollers aimed at low power or fast response tasks, mid range devices which are good for set-top-box, camera or router embedded applications, smartphones, right up to server class products.
There are also variants which are designed for safety critical systems, or high reliability.
Each specific application will require different features, but at the level that you are writing code, you are unlikely to appreciate the factors which would help you to chose a device. Is it something portable, or needing a long battery life, or providing secure communication? If you had a specific device which you needed to use, the application would be more obvious (but still very wide).
I am going to give an answer to a generic question- How to code for an arm processor/any processor-
So, the first step is to understand what ISA is! ISA is a manual(for beginners) which the company releases which acts an information source for those who wish to code for their specific processor.(In architecture world, ISA has lot more implications. What I have given is somewhat an oversimplification). Now, I would recommend that you start looking at the ARM ISA. Go through the instructions that ARM supports, understand all the features in ARM, understand the state of the machine,registers, addressing modes, etc. Get a good understanding of what your version of ARM specifically supports(NEON, Thumb, Vectors(?)).
Once you have a hang of the ISA, the next step is to decide what you want to build since now you are aware what all your processor is capable of doing. You know your limitations as well. So, now will be a good time to come up with an idea.
Now, the next step is setting up your environment. Read the specs of the board which you will be using. Set up the environment. Know the compilers/assembler. Know what flags they support.
Finally, write a simple basic assembly code. Write a code to add two numbers. I usually follow this convention- For Assembly, I write addition of two numbers as my first code. For High Level(C,C++, Java), I write HelloWorld. Execute your code and observe the output. I recommend that for the first code, you step into your debugger and observe the state of the machine after every instruction. (Keep the ISA handy).
Slowly, up your game. Write codes with functions, strings,etc. Finally, get yourself some fun stuff and learn to interface them.(LEDs, LCDs, Sensors, Camera).
Cheers!
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
Does anyone know where I might find sample solutions written in C for low level / systems level applications? A really good website or book recommendation would be cool too.
I've learned some of the basics, but would like to see some code within the context of a real solution written in C, and specifically for a lower-level problem. Id' be interested in how C is used within the context of OS programming, for example. What are some areas where C is used for lower-level programming?
Thanks.
I would suggest you to study MINIX3 from Tanenbaum: http://www.minix3.org/
Its a microkernel architecture, and with his book ( http://vig.prenhall.com/catalog/academic/product/0,1144,0131429388,00.html ) it is really enlightning.
As of my opinion, studying the linux kernel is a bit hardcore for a start ;), and out of a academical point of view the microkernel architecture is superior to the monolithic kernel.
Furthermore, with only a few thousands lines of code, unlike the Linux Kernel, its consumable in a realistic timetable.
And its a real serious project, the European Union sponsored some Millions towards it as far as i am aware of. I think i remind him saying that in one of his talks.
And you have a X-Server running there, a gcc-toolchain etcpp.
Have fun :)
EDIT: As i read the comments, someone mentions the Ruby interpreter. Its written in a mixture of C and Ruby, and as far as it was mentioned in one episode of se-radio.net, it is really nice sourcecode. Though i have to admit, i havent looked into it myself. Might be worth the dig into it if you have some interest in Ruby too.
I'd suggest looking at some (for you) interesting open source projects written in C. For example, there's busybox, a piece of software that runs on embedded devices and has lots of smaller programs to study. You could, for example, take the source for the telnet client on one side and the corresponding RFC on the other. Or, for a steeper learning curve, you could also try studying the open source OSes, like the Linux kernel (here's the tree for browsing) or the BSDs. It's a lot more involved than busybox, but you can still find some parts that are fairly easy to understand if you're familiar with the context.
Studying the Linux kernel, maybe in conjunction with one of the several books on the kernel or device drivers would provide a wealth of material. Much of this is available free.
any or all of the books by W. Richard Stevens that walk though the implementation (TCP/IP Illustrated) or use (UNIX Network Programming) of the networking stack or his Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment book.
If you have a leaning toward Windows there are several good books, even if they're quite old, including:
Programming Server-Side Applications for Microsoft Windows 2000 by Richter and Clark
Programming Applications for Microsoft Windows by Richter
I would suggest the following sources might be interesting r.e. Operating Systems from a learning perspective. Be aware there have been many advancements actually present in modern kernels:
The original linux code.
xv6. This is a simple unix OS that goes along with MIT's excellent OpenCourseWare course on Operating Systems.
Other ideas:
The current grub stage 1 bootloader isn't that complicated - it's pretty hard to be complicated with 512 bytes to play with.
The Linux kernel module guide gives you an introduction to building kernel modules. You could experiment with building custom, yet pointless, drivers that add say character devices to /dev/ or proc devices to /proc and work towards implementing something interesting. People have implemented web servers in kernel space...
If you want to experiment with Windows kernels, have a go with Native NT applications. I'd start with printing a pointless boot message, then move up to drivers.
Beyond that, it's hard to suggest where you might want to go. Systems level is a wide space.
In the context of low level programming, C and C++ are portable assembler. In many of the above spaces the standard library is either partially or totally missing and extra functionality may be implemented by existing parts of the system-level code you're modifying, so you have to be aware of the API functions available to you in any given space and what you need to implement yourself, as well as what your memory and processing requirements must be. For example, a bootloader written to the MBR has to use bios interrupts and starts in real (16-bit) mode. Those are the constraints of the hardware design. Likewise, functions like fopen() aren't available in kernel space since they wrap system calls - you'd need to use kernel specific constructs to achieve this if it really made sense to write a file from kernel space.
I am a 2nd year student at the Portuguese Engineering Faculty at the University of Oporto. I am currently studying for a Joint Degree (5 yr undergrad + masters) in Informatics and Computer engineering (which is basically software engineering :P).
I think the course is great, and well structured, but I was in for a nasty surprise.
For a class called Computer Labs (link to the syllabus, english), we have to use obsolete software - Windows 98/MS-DOS (because of protected mode limitations in XP+). I think this has no room in 2010 - even if we don't take into account the fact we should be learning multiplatform programming! All of my lecturers have made sure the software/technologies they selected was 1. updated, 2. compatible with AT LEAST the big three OSs (Mac/Win/Lin), and now this.
My knowledge of this sort of programming is insuficcient to effectively think of alternatives, but we want to change this situation for coming students.
Can I get your opinion and some suggestions for alternatives we can discuss with our lecturers? Please take the syllabus into account.
Thank you for your time!
PS: Extra info on the class here (english)
I looked at the syllabus and I think that this setup is appropriate for the goals of the class. The problem with more modern computers for a class on interfacing is that the operating system has become detached from the hardware. The HAL (hardware abstraction layer), Direct-X (graphics abstraction), and the modern toolkits for device driver development mean that interfacing to a modern Windows machine is (in my experience) more a task of understanding the security and framework requirements than it is learning what is involved in making code interact with electronic circuits. This is a course that sets the foundation for what you will learn when you get a job. It shouldn't be a course that teaches you what you will use on the job - in ten years no one will care if you had a school course interfacing to Windows Server 2010. But to add a robot control interface to the latest brain interfaced cell phone will still require an understanding of how code interacts with circuitry.
Low level programming of this sort cannot be compatible with multiple platforms. By definition, this is platform specific.
From a "working at home" point of view, it gets worse: this is hardware specific.
In my undergraduate course, we did this work on an embedded system (specifically, a Freescale HCS12 microcontroller) rather than using a general purpose PC. It still generally means that you can't work from home - we were provided with out-of-hours access to the lab - but emulators for microcontrollers tend to be about emulating the hardware rather than just getting the majority of software to work.
In terms of the syllabus you linked, we covered almost exactly the same material, with the only differences being that we used CPU12/Motorola assembly language rather than IA32 and a different set of tools. You could suggest using a simpler processor (such as the HC11 or HCS12), but the main advantage is that people expect it to be simple and understand that they can't use it at home: your situation doesn't change, but it is easier to accept.
dos is still alive and well, actively used in ATM (bank teller machines) cash registers, gas pumps, and the like. Basically is one of the most widely used embedded operating systems. The tools and (used) books, web information, etc are still available, inexpensive, etc. A balance of just the right amount of system calls with the freedom to get at the hardware without the OS getting in the way. The windows 3.x based kernels (windows 3.x up to windows 98 or maybe me) also easily allow for direct access with minimal operating system interference. Linux, Windows nt based kernels (windows nt, 2000, xp, etc) do not have those features, are too high level in their drivers, too much operating system in the way. The connection from dos/win3x to the present windows is still there and the student can then understand and use the more advanced/complicated modern operating system.
Encouraging DOS, AmigaOS, pdp-11 assembler, 6502 assembler, and the like in the curriculum is a good thing for future generations not a bad thing. Perhaps call it hands on computer history if you like but it is important to get a well rounded education in software engineering. Students will get a better understanding of the C language for example when they see the platform it was developed on/from (pdp-11/lsi-11). pdp11 is probably one of the best first assembly languages to teach (or msp430) and x86 is clearly the last you would ever teach if ever. (well briefly touching on I/O mapped memory vs memory mapped memory is important, also segmented architectures and how they were used instead of mmus is important, perhaps taught along side some harvard and other now less popular architectures).
Behind the curtain knowledge is dropping off at an alarming rate in the software industry. To the point of being a crisis. Fixing that starts at the schools. You cannot learn it with linux or windows 7 or anything like that.
If you want to replace this class with something else then non-operating system (non-rtos) microcontroller work. msp430 or ARM are good platforms for teaching C interrupts, have good tools, are good instruction sets for teaching for the some assembly that is required. ARM being the most widely used processor today means the student would be immediately marketable for the devices using that platform (mp3 players, mobile phones, pretty much everything handheld). avr and arduino is not bad, covers the same c and interrupt thing, but is not a great instruction set for teaching.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm getting into microcontroller programming and have been hearing contrasting views. What language is most used in the industry for microcontroller programming? Is this what you use in your own work? If not, why not?
P.S.: I'm hoping the answer is not assembly language.
In my experience, you absolutely must know C, and assembly language helps too.
Unless you are dealing with very bare-bones microcontrollers (like the RS08 series), C is by far the language of choice. Get to know C, understand functionality like volatile and const. Also understand the architecture - what is efficient, what isn't, what can the CPU do. These will differ wildly from a "desktop" environment. Learn to love stdint.h.
You will encounter C++ (or a restricted subset) as projects scale up.
However, you need to understand the CPU and how to read basic assembly as a debugging tool. You can't become an excellent embedded developer without this skillset.
What 'contrasting' views have you heard? To some extent it will depend on the microcontroller and the application. However C is available for almost all architectures (I hesitate to say all, but probably all that you will ever encounter); so on that point alone, learning C would give you the greatest coverage.
For all architectures, the availability of an assembler and a C compiler are pretty much a given. For 32-bit and most 16-bit architectures C++ will also be available. Notable exceptions I have encountered are Microchip's PIC24/dsPIC parts for which C++ is not supported by Microchip's own GNU based compiler (although 3rd party compilers may do so).
While there are C++ compilers for 8 bit microcontroller's C++ is not ubiquitous on such platforms, and often the compilers are subsets of the full language. For the types (or more specifically the size) of application for which 8-bit is usually employed, C++ may be useful but not to the extent that it is on much larger applications, so C is generally adequate.
There are lot of myths about C++ in embedded systems; while the language is larger than C and has constructs that may compromise the performance or capacity of your system, you only pay for what you use with C++. But of course if what you use is just the C subset, the C would be adequate in any case.
The point about C (and C++) is that it is a systems level language; it will run on your microprocessor with no additional support save a very simple runtime start-up to initialise the processor (and possibly external SDRAM), initialise static data, establish a stack, and in the case of C++ invoke static constructors. This is why along with target specific assembler, it is used to build operating systems and kernels - it needs no operating system or kernel itself to run.
One of the reasons I suggested that it may depend on the microcontroller is that if for example it is an ARM9 with a few Mb of external SDRAM, and at least say 4Mb Flash (also usually external - memory takes up a lot of die space), then you could run a 'heavyweight' OS on it such as Linux, WinCE, or Symbian, or even a large RTOS such as QNX or VxWorks. Then your choice of language (once you got the OS working), would be influenced by the OS, though for real-time applications C and C++ would still dominate, (or often Ada in military, avionics, and some transport applications).
For mid-size applications - a few hundred KBytes of code and data space - C# running on the .NET-Micro platform is possible; However I sat in a presentation of this at the Embedded Systems Show in the UK a few years ago, just after it was when it was launched; when I asked the question "but is it real-time", and was told, "no you need WinCE for that", there was a gasp and a groan from much of the audience, and some stopped wasting their time an left the presentation there and then (including me).
So I am still interested in the 'contrasting' opinions you have heard; because although it is possible to use other languages; the answer to your question:
What language is most used in the
industry for microcontoller
programming?
then the definitive answer is C; for the reasons I have given. For anyone who might choose to contest this assertion here are the statistics (note the different survey method after 2004 explained in the text). However just to add to the collection of alternatives, I once spent two years programming in Forth on embedded systems, and I know of people still using it, but it is a bit of a niche.
I've successfully used both C and C++ but in almost any microcontroller project you will need to be familiar with the assembly language of the target micro. If only for debugging low level hardware issues assembly will be indispensable, even if it is a cursory familiarity.
I think the hardest thing for me when moving from a desktop environment to a micro was that almost everything needs to be allocated statically. You won't often use malloc/new in a micro unless maybe it has external RAM.
I notice that you also tagged your question with FPGA and Verilog, take a look at Altium, they have a C to Hardware compiler that works really well with their integrated environment.
Regarding assembler:
Prefer C/C++ over assembler as much as possible. You'll get better productivity by writing as much as possible in C or C++. That includes being able to run some of your code on a PC, which can help developing the higher-level code (application-layer functions).
On many embedded platforms, it's good to have someone on the project who is comfortable with a little assembler. Mostly to get start-up code and interrupts going nicely, and perhaps functions for interrupt enable/disable. That's not the same as knowing it really thoroughly--just a basic working knowledge will be sufficient.
If you're porting an RTOS (e.g. µC/OS-II) to a new platform, then you'll have to know your assembler more. But hopefully your RTOS supports your platform well already.
If you're pushing up against CPU performance limits, you probably need to know assembler more thoroughly. But hopefully you're not pushing performance limits much, because that can be a drag on a project's viability.
If you're writing for a DSP, you probably need to know the DSP's assembler fairly thoroughly.
Microcontrollers were originally programmed only in assembly language, but various high-level programming languages are now also in common use to target microcontrollers. These languages are either designed specially for the purpose, or versions of general purpose languages such as the C programming language. Compilers for general purpose languages will typically have some restrictions as well as enhancements to better support the unique characteristics of microcontrollers. Some microcontrollers have environments to aid developing certain types of applications. Microcontroller vendors often make tools freely available to make it easier to adopt their hardware.
Many microcontrollers are so quirky that they effectively require their own non-standard dialects of C, such as SDCC for the 8051, which prevent using standard tools (such as code libraries or static analysis tools) even for code unrelated to hardware features. Interpreters are often used to hide such low level quirks.
Interpreter firmware is also available for some microcontrollers. For example, BASIC on the early microcontrollers Intel 8052[4]; BASIC and FORTH on the Zilog Z8[5] as well as some modern devices. Typically these interpreters support interactive programming.
Simulators are available for some microcontrollers, such as in Microchip's MPLAB environment. These allow a developer to analyze what the behavior of the microcontroller and their program should be if they were using the actual part. A simulator will show the internal processor state and also that of the outputs, as well as allowing input signals to be generated. While on the one hand most simulators will be limited from being unable to simulate much other hardware in a system, they can exercise conditions that may otherwise be hard to reproduce at will in the physical implementation, and can be the quickest way to debug and analyze problems.
You need to know assembly language programming.You need to have good knowledge in C and also C++ too.so work hard on thse things to get better expertize on micro controller programming.
And don't forget about VHDL.
For microcontrollers assembler comes before C. Before the ARMs started pushing into this market the compilers were horrible and the memory and ROM really tiny. There are not enough resources or commonality to port your code so writing in C for portability makes no sense.
Some microcontroller's assembler is less than desirable, and ARM is taking over that market. For less money, less power, and less footprint you can have a 32-bit processor with more resources. It just makes sense. Much if your code will still not port, but you can probably get by with C.
Bottom line, assembler and C. If they advertise BASIC or Java or something like that, mark that company on your blacklist and move on. Been there, done that, have the scars to prove it.
First Assembly. After C.
I think that who knows Assembly and C are better than who knows only C.
I'm wondering if anyone knows of a place on the web that I can purchase or download software modules, written in C or C++, for the interaction between microprocessors and other components, like DACs, ADCs, or UARTs. Sort of like a git-hub for embedded C software. Does this place exist?
You're possibly looking for something called a 'board support package' or BSP. For a given operating system it will have a collection of drivers / libraries to help you communicate with the hardware component.
Saying that, some standard hardware interfaces for e.g. 16550 Uart might have drivers that come with the OS.
You might also want to take a look at Jean Labrosse's "Embedded Systems Building Blocks" book. It has some straight C libraries for dealing with UARTs, Analog I/O, timers, etc.
Of course, you do still need to wire them up to the actual chip's hardware implementation (as other answers have indicated, you can usually get libs to help with that from the chip vendors), but they can be a convenient wrapper to let you more easily move your higher level software from one device to another. There's no earth-shattering stuff that would be particularly difficult to do on your own, but it's there for the taking, so why not? Even if it's not exactly what you might want, it's a leg up.
Normally the device manufacturer will supply you with a libc that you can use for all the low-level stuff.
first, decide which chip manufacturer to go for... next, go to their official site or contact them, you would get the libs for the supported IO's and other communication stuffs.
Ok what about for TI? BSPs are something I'm aware of, but they dont' really exist for software that exists below the O/S level.
2nd, lets say I wanted to wanted software to make the TI MSP430 Microcontroller talk to DAC7565. I realy can't find software that relates those two in any reliable way.
I'm talking about a complete software package, something equivalent to a gem in Ruby, where I could call functions like "OutputVoltage(unsigned int voltage, unsinged int channel)" and be oblivious to the hardware implementation.
#nobugz Yes, I agree, but that is awfully restraining. C should be like Ruby where you can only focus on what you want to do, not having to spend time restricting yourself because of the availability of software...
#Shaihi
I'm not, I am a software engineer with an engineering firm who custom design their own boards. I just can't believe that across the entire world and the entire history of software engineering that I am the first person who needs to interface this microcontroller and this DAC. SO therefore it must exist someplace. Maybe I can't get my hands on it but someone, somewhere has done it before.
I'm a very young engineer, but it just seems like there are hundreds or thousands of guys who end up writing the same software again and again. And on top of that, since there are plenty of software engineers who are terribly good at abstraction and reuse, I'm willing to bet there are plenty of engineers who end up re-writing the same software time and time again because the software they write is way too tightly coupled to that specific application.
Just seems like a giant waste of engineering hours.
Did you check the application notes on the A/D vendor's web site? They very often have C code. The problem with assembly language code is that there are so many different ADC and microprocessor vendors and so many different ways to wire up the chip that they can't provide a general purpose library. Also, a programmer may want to poll the end-of-conversion flag or allow the chip to interrupt when the conversion is complete. It is very application specific. Your best hope is that the vendor has some example code that will serve as a guide for how to use the chip. The good news is that user's manuals for these peripherals are a lot better than they were 20 years ago.
Also, the vendor probably has application engineers who will help you with your design.