Is it possible to create one file, say for example uart.c to be generic, so that I can call the uart functions for different microcontrollers, say for example avr and arm? or is it a must that for every microcontroller I will have to create the the uart functions from scratch?
You can create a Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) that acts as a common interface for all hardware of the same kind. A correctly designed HAL allows portable application-layer code, which is the sole purpose of having one.
The HAL should be in the form of an API library that then acts as a header file template for how the drivers should be designed, the simplest form of "polymorphism". The application programmer calls the HAL, and the MCU-specific functions in the driver will then get called.
In case of UART you might have an init function taking baudrate, stop bit, parity, handshaking etc as parameters. And then a read function and a write function, with some error handling. Overrun and framing errors are universal, for example. It is then up to the specific driver for MCU "x" to implement itself according to your specified HAL.
Generally, one should not create abstaction layers needlessly though. It is quite qualified work and easy to get wrong. If you don't need portability or code re-use between projects, there's no obvious need for a HAL and you could as well call the driver directly from the application code.
The hardware implementations and register interfaces across different vendors certainly differ. ARM do not make MCUs they licence the core - the peripherals are not defined by the core so even amongst ARM devices the peripheral implementations differ between vendors.
What you can do is define a common device-layer interface and implement that interface for each device family you need, then you can reuse the application layer code across architectures.
The alternative is to stick with a common family. AVR for example covers a wide range of devices and the peripherals generally are common across the range. Similarly STM32 (ARM Cortex-M) devices share common peripherals across the range.
So the answer is no, but you can deal with that by abstracting the hardware (or the vendor supplied abstraction or device layer).
For a UART you might use stdio as your abstraction layer and access the device via fprintf, fputchar, fread, fwrite etc. Though typically you'd build that on a lower level layer too.
Related
I try to understand how they both relate to each other. As far as I know, they both can be a part of the HAL. In case of a communication between an application and a graphics card - can an API get the job done on its own or do we have to rely on them both? Can an API directly communicate with the hardware or do we always need a driver in-between, which translates the command of the API?
TL;DR
Think of an API as a specification that describes what to do, while a driver is an implementation that describes how to do it.
Details
As a contrived example, imagine we have three different audio cards that we want to play nicely with multiple operating systems. We can define an API for the card manufacturers that says, "Each card must support four methods: mute(), playsound(sound), volumeup() and volumedown()". By defining the API, we get a common interface that allows the operating system designers to support the audio devices without worrying about the hardware details. They know that if they want to mute the sound card, they can call mute(), or if they want to turn the volume up, they call volumeup().
It is then up to the device manufacturers to implement a driver that actually performs those actions. The driver will vary between the three different audio cards because they are different at the hardware level, but the API is consistent so the next higher abstraction level (the OS) doesn't need to know how to deal with the hardware.
For a more concrete example, consider the Advanced Control & Power Interface (ACPI) specification. It defines a common interface for operating systems to manage power consumption and thermal characteristics of hardware devices. There are methods that a device driver or firmware must implement in order to be "ACPI Compliant". This allows Windows operating systems and Linux variants to both perform the same actions on hardware devices without needing to implement their own drivers for the hardware
Note: Windows performs ACPI actions through acpi.sys, which they call an "ACPI Driver". Don't let the terminology confuse you; even though they call it a driver, it is really a window into the ACPI interface. Linux uses the acpi kernel module to do the same thing, and Linux doesn't call it a driver. Perhaps ACPI wasn't the best example, but I don't have anything better at the moment.
I would like to have Arduino operating in a CAN network. Does the software that provides OSI model network layer exist for Arduino? I would imagine detecting the HI/LOW levels with GPIO/ADC and sending the signal to the network with DAC. It would be nice to have that without any extra hardware attached. I don't mind to have a terminating resistor required by the CAN network though.
By Arduino I mean any of them. My intention is to keep the development environmen.
If such a software does not exist, is there any technical obstacle for that, like limited flash size (again, I don't mean particular board with certain Atmega chip).
You can write a bit banging CAN driver, but it has many limitations.
First it's the timeing, it's hard to achieve the bit timing and also the arbitration.
You will be able to get 10kb or perhaps even 50kb but that consumes a huge amount of your cpu time.
And the code itself is a pain.
You have to calculate the CRC on the fly (easy) but to implement the collision detection and all the timing parameters is not easy.
Once, I done this for a company, but it was a realy bad idea.
Better buy a chip for 1 Euro and be happy.
There are several CAN Bus Shield boards available (e.g: this, and this), and that would be a far better solution. It is not just a matter of the controller chip, the bus interface, line drivers, and power all need to be considered. If you have the resources and skills you can of course create your own board or bread-board for less.
Even if you bit-bang it via GPIO you would need some hardware mods I believe to handle bus contention detection, and it would be very slow and may not interoperate well with "real" CAN controllers on the bus.
If your aim is to communicate between devices of your own design rather than off-the shelf CAN devices, then you don't need CAN for that, and something proprietary will suffice, and a UART will perform faster that a bit-banged CAN implementation.
I don't think, that such software exists. CAN bus is more complex, than for example I2C. Basically you would have to implement functionality of both CAN controller and CAN transceiver. See this thread for more details (in German).
Alternatively you could use one of the CAN shields. Another option were to use BeagleBone with suitable CAN cape.
Also take a look at AVR-CAN.
I have been searching around [in vain] for some good links/sources to help understand GPIOs and why they are used in embedded systems. Can anyone please point me to some ?
In any useful system, the CPU has to have some way to interact with the outside world - be it lights or sounds presented to the user or electrical signals used to communicate with other parts of the system. A GPIO (general purpose input/output) pin lets you either get input for your program from outside the CPU or to provide output to the user.
Some uses for GPIOs as inputs:
detect button presses
receive interrupt requests from external devices
Some uses for GPIOs as outputs:
blink an LED
sound a buzzer
control power for external devices
A good case for a bidirectional GPIO or a set of GPIOs can be to "bit-bang" a protocol that your SoC doesn't provide natively. You could roll your own SPI or I2C interface, for example.
The reason you cannot find an answer is probably because if you know what an embedded system is and does, or indeed anything about digital electronic systems, then the answer is rather too obvious to write down! That is to say that if you get as far a s actually implementing a working embedded system, you should already know what they are.
GPIO pins are as a minimum, two state digital logic I/O. In most cases some or all of them may also be interrupt sources. These interrupts may have options for be rising, falling, dual edge, or level triggering.
On some targets GPIO pins may have configurable output circuitry to allow, for example, external pull-ups to be omitted, or to allow connection to devices that require open-collector outputs, and in some cases even to provide filtering of high frequency noise and glitches.
In most embedded systems, a processor will be ultimately responsible for sensing the state of various devices which translate external stimuli to digital-level logic voltages (e.g. when a button is pushed, a pin will go low; otherwise it will sit high), and controlling devices which translate logic-level voltages directly into action (e.g. when a pin is high, a light will go on; when low, it will go off). It used to be that processors did not have general-purpose I/O, but would instead have to use a shared bus communicate with devices that could process I/O requests and set or report the state of the external circuits. Although this approach was not entirely without advantages (one processor could monitor or control thousands of circuits on a shared bus) it was inconvenient in many real-world applications.
While it is possible for a processor to control any number of inputs and outputs using a four-wire SPI bus or even a two-wire I2C bus, in many cases the number of signals a processor will need to monitor or control is sufficiently small that it's easier to simply include the circuitry to monitor or control some signals directly on the chip itself. Although dedicated interfacing hardware will frequently have output-only or input-only pins (the person choosing the hardware interface chips will know how many signals need to be monitored, and how many need to be controlled), a particular family of processor may be used in some applications that require e.g. 4 inputs and 28 outputs, and other applications that require 28 inputs and 4 outputs. Instead of requiring that different parts be used in applications with different balances between inputs and outputs, it's simpler to just have one part with inputs that can be configured as inputs or outputs, as needed.
I think you have it backwards. GPIO is the default in electronics. It's a pin, a signal, that can be programmed. Everything is made up of these. For a processor, dedicated peripherals are a special case, they're extras for when you know you want a more limited function.
From a chip manufacturers perspective, you often don't know exactly what the user needs so you can't make the exact peripherals on your chip. You make generic ones instead. Many applications are so rare that there's no market for a specific chip. Only thing you can do is use GPIO or make specific hardware yourself. Also, all (unused or potentially unused) pins are worth turning into GPIO because that makes the part even more generic and reusable. Generic and reusable is very nearly the whole point of programmable chips, otherwise you would just make ASICs.
Some particularly suitable applications:
Reset parts (chips) in a system
Interface to switches, keypads, lights (all they have is one pin/signal!)
Controlling loads with relays or semicondctor switches (on-off)
Solenoid, motor, heater, valve...
Get interrupts from single signals
Thermostats, limit switches, level detectors, alarm devices...
BTW, the Parallax Propeller has practically nothing but GPIO pins. Peripherals are made in software. It works very well for many uses.
First the background, specifics of my question will follow:
At the company that I work at the platform we work on is currently the Microchip PIC32 family using the MPLAB IDE as our development environment. Previously we've also written firmware for the Microchip dsPIC and TI MSP families for this same application.
The firmware is pretty straightforward in that the code is split into three main modules: device control, data sampling, and user communication (usually a user PC). Device control is achieved via some combination of GPIO bus lines and at least one part needing SPI or I2C control. Data sampling is interrupt driven using a Timer module to maintain sample frequency and more SPI/I2C and GPIO bus lines to control the sampling hardware (ie. ADC). User communication is currently implemented via USB using the Microchip App Framework.
So now the question: given what I've described above, at what point would I consider employing an RTOS for my project? Currently I'm thinking of these possible trigger points as reasons to use an RTOS:
Code complexity? The code base architecture/organization is still small enough that I can keep all the details in my head.
Multitasking/Threading? Time-slicing the module execution via interrupts suffices for now for multitasking.
Testing? Currently we don't do much formal testing or verification past the HW smoke test (something I hope to rectify in the near future).
Communication? We currently use a custom packet format and a protocol that pretty much only does START, STOP, SEND DATA commands with data being a binary blob.
Project scope? There is a possibility in the near future that we'll be getting a project to integrate our device into a larger system with the goal of taking that system to mass production. Currently all our projects have been experimental prototypes with quick turn-around of about a month, producing one or two units at a time.
What other points do you think I should consider? In your experience what convinced (or forced) you to consider using an RTOS vs just running your code on the base runtime? Pointers to additional resources about designing/programming for an RTOS is also much appreciated.
There are many many reasons you might want to use an RTOS. They are varied & the degree to which they apply to your situation is hard to say. (Note: I tend to think this way: RTOS implies hard real time which implies preemptive kernel...)
Rate Monotonic Analysis (RMA) - if you want to use Rate Monotonic Analysis to ensure your timing deadlines will be met, you must use a pre-emptive scheduler
Meet real-time deadlines - even without using RMA, with a priority-based pre-emptive RTOS, your scheduler can help ensure deadlines are met. Paradoxically, an RTOS will typically increase interrupt latency due to critical sections in the kernel where interrupts are usually masked
Manage complexity -- definitely, an RTOS (or most OS flavors) can help with this. By allowing the project to be decomposed into independent threads or processes, and using OS services such as message queues, mutexes, semaphores, event flags, etc. to communicate & synchronize, your project (in my experience & opinion) becomes more manageable. I tend to work on larger projects, where most people understand the concept of protecting shared resources, so a lot of the rookie mistakes don't happen. But beware, once you go to a multi-threaded approach, things can become more complex until you wrap your head around the issues.
Use of 3rd-party packages - many RTOSs offer other software components, such as protocol stacks, file systems, device drivers, GUI packages, bootloaders, and other middleware that help you build an application faster by becoming almost more of an "integrator" than a DIY shop.
Testing - yes, definitely, you can think of each thread of control as a testable component with a well-defined interface, especially if a consistent approach is used (such as always blocking in a single place on a message queue). Of course, this is not a substitute for unit, integration, system, etc. testing.
Robustness / fault tolerance - an RTOS may also provide support for the processor's MMU (in your PIC case, I don't think that applies). This allows each thread (or process) to run in its own protected space; threads / processes cannot "dip into" each others' memory and stomp on it. Even device regions (MMIO) might be off limits to some (or all) threads. Strictly speaking, you don't need an RTOS to exploit a processor's MMU (or MPU), but the 2 work very well hand-in-hand.
Generally, when I can develop with an RTOS (or some type of preemptive multi-tasker), the result tends to be cleaner, more modular, more well-behaved and more maintainable. When I have the option, I use one.
Be aware that multi-threaded development has a bit of a learning curve. If you're new to RTOS/multithreaded development, you might be interested in some articles on Choosing an RTOS, The Perils of Preemption and An Introduction to Preemptive Multitasking.
Lastly, even though you didn't ask for recommendations... In addition to the many numerous commercial RTOSs, there are free offerings (FreeRTOS being one of the most popular), and the Quantum Platform is an event-driven framework based on the concept of active objects which includes a preemptive kernel. There are plenty of choices, but I've found that having the source code (even if the RTOS isn't free) is advantageous, esp. when debugging.
RTOS, first and foremost permits you to organize your parallel flows into the set of tasks with well-defined synchronization between them.
IMO, the non-RTOS design is suitable only for the single-flow architecture where all your program is one big endless loop. If you need the multi-flow - a number of tasks, running in parallel - you're better with RTOS. Without RTOS you'll be forced to implement this functionality in-house, re-inventing the wheel.
Code re-use -- if you code drivers/protocol-handlers using an RTOS API they may plug into future projects easier
Debugging -- some IDEs (such as IAR Embedded Workbench) have plugins that show nice live data about your running process such as task CPU utilization and stack utilization
Usually you want to use an RTOS if you have any real-time constraints. If you don’t have real-time constraints, a regular OS might suffice. RTOS’s/OS’s provide a run-time infrastructure like message queues and tasking. If you are just looking for code that can reduce complexity, provide low level support and help with testing, some of the following libraries might do:
The standard C/C++ libraries
Boost libraries
Libraries available through the manufacturer of the chip that can provide hardware specific support
Commercial libraries
Open source libraries
Additional to the points mentioned before, using an RTOS may also be useful if you need support for
standard storage devices (SD, Compact Flash, disk drives ...)
standard communication hardware (Ethernet, USB, Firewire, RS232, I2C, SPI, ...)
standard communication protocols (TCP-IP, ...)
Most RTOSes provide these features or are expandable to support them
in my project I need to work with device drivers, but have a hard time to understand the naming, scope and function of the abstraction layers. As I see the main layer is HAL - "hardware abstraction layer".
What are the clients of HAL, whom is HAL interfacing?
Are you talking about a specific HAL in windows or linux or something or in general?
When accessing registers from a device driver (code that drives a device, doesnt have to be a kernel thing or have an operating system at all) for example I generally recommend to create functions like PUT32(address,data), data=GET32(address). Or writel and readl, whatever you fancy. The point being to avoid creating a pointer with the address and using that pointer directly. There is a performance gain to the pointer type solution, and performance hit to the abstract PUT32(). Why I use it though is because if the code is clean enough that driver can be used as part of a kernel driver for this os, a kernel driver for that os, run standalone embedded, connect to an hdl simulation of the logic, run on a processor on the same chip, or run on a host computer that reaches into the chip via PCI or jtag, etc. One chunk of code reused from the birth of the logic (hdl sim) to the end user kernel driver.
Perhaps more to your question though think about a uart, you want to send some bytes and receive some bytes right? Create a uart_send() function and a uart_recv() function, everything above the abstraction layer uses these two functions, when you target this code to a specific platform then you implement those functions for the specific uart in that specific hardware. later on you can replace that uart with something else, so long as the new uart can send and receive the code above the abstraction layer does not have to change. Even though you have created an abstraction layer with the functions above, I personally would still use PUT8() and GET8() functions in the implementation of uart_send() and uart_recv() for the specific uart, and in a separate file implement PUT8() and GET8().
How many layers of abstraction between the driver and the actual hardware, how and where are often specific to the task and the hardware.
In computers, a hardware abstraction layer (HAL) is a layer of programming that allows a computer operating system to interact with a hardware device at a general or abstract level rather than at a detailed hardware level. Windows 2000 is one of several operating systems that include a hardware abstraction layer. The hardware abstraction layer can be called from either the operating system's kernel or from a device driver. In either case, the calling program can interact with the device in a more general way than it would otherwise.