I am trying to understand the CAN network management of AUTOSAR. I am trying to sleep the ECU if there are no CAN message received during IGN cycle. I am blocking the CAN transmission and reception during this stage. Now suppose AUTOSAR NM message is received, i want to make the ECU to wakeup and need to make CAN to be full active. I have gone through the basic Autosar Network management understanding.
As per my understanding
If communication on the bus is needed i.e. requested, NM messages are sent out. If no communication is needed i.e. released, sending of NM messages is stopped.
When the Autosar NM state is "Ready Sleep state" or "Repeat Message State", I am waking up the CAN. I would like to know, this is a good approach.
Reference: AUTOSAR_SWS_CANNetworkManagement.pdf
You need to read detail the state diagram in section 7.20 for the state and possible transition.
The wake-up and sleep in network management means the communication state. And the specification defines the state to synchronize between ECUs in vehicle. For examples:
During bus-sleep state is state that you disable the CAN controller and CAN transceiver.
During wake-up, you will initiate the communication state again for full communication.
Note: Beware about the state of sending/receiving the NM message because it is sync signal for all ECUs.
Related
I am trying to understand the CAN network management in vehicle. During my research, I got to know that CAN network management(CANNM) will make some Mode state to decide the CAN transmission. Those modes are CAN active, CAN passive and CAN sleep states. I want to know that is the exact use of CANNM and why these modes are required ?
I highly recommended to read Autosar Network Management Spec
Where you will got the idea behind that.
Maybe in your term it differences but likely same
CAN Active : If at least one NM node in a NM cluster needs
communication, the NM protocol ensures that all required
NM nodes remain awake.
Can Sleep : If there is no communication need in a NM cluster, the
NM protocol ensures that all NM nodes synchronously
enter sleep mode
Can Passive : NM node configured as Passive node is not able to
initiate a start-up of a NM cluster, however is able to be
woken up if any other node initiates a start-up. This
eliminates unnecessary communication and reduces bus
and buffer overhead. Allowing shutdown to be controlled
by a subset of the cluster’s nodes enables the possibility
that only fault tolerant nodes control shutdown.
Long said short what all this for a Startup/Wakeup and Sleep/Shutdown for ECUs in network
I'm developing a stack layer on microcontroller STM32L433 that uses the CAN protocol; a fundamental part of the stack is the authentication of the devices.
During authentication it can occur that two (or more) devices start to send a CAN message (authentication message) with the same identifier and different payload (true random value). In this case every device should be able to detect if this message was sent first from another device.
I have studied this case and three situations can occur:
the devices start to send message at the same time; in this case only one device is able to sent the message because all others devices detect one error and then abort the transmission.
only one device is able to send the message and occupy the bus before all others devices load the transmission MAILBOX of the CAN peripheral, or before the CAN peripheral of the others devices set the message that is going to be sent in the SCHEDULED state.
In this case, the devices that have not been able to send the message will receive the reception interrupt; within the ISR routine of reception I'm able to abort the transmission.
only one device are able to send the message and occupy the bus and all others CAN peripherals of others devices have message in SCHEDULED state and are waiting that bus become idle.
In this case the devices that have not been able to send the message will receive the reception interrupt. Also in this situation I thought to stop the transmission within the ISR routine of reception (like situation 2) ), but I'm not sure that this is guaranteed for all messages because if the CAN peripheral sets the message that is going to be sent in the TRANSMIT state before the code inside ISR is executed, the operation of abort will have no effect.
My question is (related to the situation 3): Is the message in the transmission MAILBOX in the SCHEDULED state set in the TRANSMISSION state after that the code in the receiving ISR routine is executed or is this thing not guaranteed?
To answer on your third case first, no it is not guaranteed that your message is not on the bus, while receiving. Because interrupts might have some latency too, and within this time, the mailbox might be able to go ahead with transmission.
Your "authentication" also sounds a bit troublesome, since nobody from outside could also actually decide which ECU was actually the one that won the arbitration and actually sent that specific message.
We have ECUs in vehicles which decide at runtime, according to certain methods, where they are mounted by pin and some CAN reception, but only in listen mode. TX is actually disabled in the stack. After that, detection has completed, we switch configurations and restart the communications stack and further initialize the software going up.
But these "setups" are usually defined beforehand, e.g. due to master/slave (vehicle/private bus communication), or maybe some connector pins connected to GND / OPEN / UBAT, or maybe some bus message which tells on which bus it is on.
That seems to be more reliable than your method.
I'm using the bxCAN peripheral of an STMF3 uC in an environment where
1.) it is essential that the node is detached from the network once the REC/TEC has reached the warning level (waiting for the bus-off condition is not an option)
2.) the baud rate of the host network is unknown
3.) the connection might be sporadic as the node is connected by the user
Due to 1.) the STM32 HAL CAN driver is used in IT mode and whenever the called with the EWG flag set, the error callback shuts down the transceiver and deinitializes the bxCAN. In case the REC is over the limit, it is easily recovered by configuring the bxCAN in silent mode, assuming there is traffic on the CAN. However, if the TEC is over the limit, the bxCAN won't be able to transmit an other frame as the error interrupt will be instantly triggered once enabled -> there we are in a deadlock.
I tried decrementing the TEC by transmitting frames in silent loopback mode but successful transmissions do not affect the TEC in this mode it seems.
I suppose the question is not specific to this peripheral but valid for other CAN implementations.
Any suggestions are welcome.
I have implemented a work-around that seems to work fine, with the following requirements:
1.) whenever the CAN error ISR is triggered, it disconnects the node from the bus (the transceiver is powered off)
2.) not all interrupt sources are enabled, only the ones that are of higher severity than the last error state (e.g. in PASSIVE state the WARNING and PASSIVE interrupts are disabled and the BUSOFF interrupt is enabled)
3.) the last error state and thus the interrupt sources are updated whenever a.) an error ISR is triggered or b.) polling the CAN peripheral with a high frequency shows change in the error state
4.) whenever attempting a connection to the bus the REC must heal in listen-only mode first. For this, traffic is required on the bus.
With these requirements implemented the node is able to fail silently but recover to normal operation.
Early Cisco routers running IOS operating system enhanced their packet processing speed by doing packet switching within the interrupt handler instead in "regular" operating system process. Doing packet processing in interrupt handler ensured that context switching within operating system does not affect the packet processing. As I understand, interrupt handler is a piece of software in operating system meant for handling the interrupts. How to understand the concept of packet switching done within the interrupt handler?
use of interrupts is preferred when an event requires some immediate attention by the operating system, or a program which installed an interrupt service routine. This as opposed to polling, where software checks periodically whether a condition exists, which indicates that the event has occurred.
interrupt service routines aren't commonly meant to do a lot of work themselves. They are rather written to reach their end as quickly as possible, so that normal execution can resume. "normal execution" meaning, the location and state previous processing was interrupted when the interrupt occurred. reason is that it must be avoided that the same interrupt occurs again while its handler is still executed, or it may be ignored, or lead to incorrect results, or even worse, to software failure (crashes). So what an interrupt service routine usually does is, reading any data associated with that event and storing it in a queue, signalling that the queue experienced mutation, and setting things such that another interrupt may occur, then resume by restoring pre-interrupt context. the queued data, associated with that interrupt, can now be processed asynchronously, without risking that interrupts pile up.
The following is the procedure for executing interrupt-level switching:
Look up the memory structure to determine the next-hop address and outgoing interface.
Do an Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Layer 2 rewrite, also called MAC rewrite, which means changing the encapsulation of the packet to comply with the outgoing interface.
Put the packet into the tx ring or output queue of the outgoing interface.
Update the appropriate memory structures (reset timers in caches, update counters, and so forth).
The interrupt which is raised when a packet is received from the network interface is called the "RX interrupt". This interrupt is dismissed only when all the above steps are executed. If any of the first three steps above cannot be performed, the packet is sent to the next switching layer. If the next switching layer is process switching, the packet is put into the input queue of the incoming interface for process switching and the interrupt is dismissed. Since interrupts cannot be interrupted by interrupts of the same level and all interfaces raise interrupts of the same level, no other packet can be handled until the current RX interrupt is dismissed.
Different interrupt switching paths can be organized in a hierarchy, from the one providing the fastest lookup to the one providing the slowest lookup. The last resort used for handling packets is always process switching. Not all interfaces and packet types are supported in every interrupt switching path. Generally, only those that require examination and changes limited to the packet header can be interrupt-switched. If the packet payload needs to be examined before forwarding, interrupt switching is not possible. More specific constraints may exist for some interrupt switching paths. Also, if the Layer 2 connection over the outgoing interface must be reliable (that is, it includes support for retransmission), the packet cannot be handled at interrupt level.
The following are examples of packets that cannot be interrupt-switched:
Traffic directed to the router (routing protocol traffic, Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), Telnet, Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP), ping, and so on). Management traffic can be sourced and directed to the router. They have specific task-related processes.
OSI Layer 2 connection-oriented encapsulations (for example, X.25). Some tasks are too complex to be coded in the interrupt-switching path because there are too many instructions to run, or timers and windows are required. Some examples are features such as encryption, Local Area Transport (LAT) translation, and Data-Link Switching Plus (DLSW+).
More here: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ios-nx-os-software/ios-software-releases-121-mainline/12809-tuning.html
I'm writing a RS485 driver for an embedded C project.
The driver is listening for incoming messages and should notify the upper layer application when a complete message is received and ready to be read.
What is the preferred way to do this?
By using interrupts? Trigger a SW interrupt and read the message from within the ISR?
Let the application poll the driver periodically?
I generally do as little work as possible in the ISR to secure the received data or clean up the transmitted data. This will usually mean reading data out of the hardware buffers and into a circular buffer.
On receive, for a multi-threaded os, a receive interrupt empties the hardware, clears the interrupt and signals a thread to service the received data.
For a polling environment, a receive interrupt empties the harwdware, clears the interrupt, and sets a flag to notify the polling loop that it has something to process.
Since interrupts can occur any time the data structures shared between the ISR and the polling loop or processing thread must be protected using a mutual exclusion mechanism.
Often this will mean disabling interrupts briefly while you adjust a pointer or count.
If the received data is packetized you can hunt for packet boundaries in the ISR
and notify the handler only when a full packet has arrived.