I'm trying to interface a board level USB camera with a STM32 family microcontroller and send the image file to a central computer using CANbus. Just want to know if this is possible/ has been done before and how involved a task it would be.
I worked at a company where we sent live (low-resolution infra-red) video streams over CAN, but towards the end of my time there they shifted towards ethernet.
So it is possible, but certainly not what it is best suited for. The main advantages of CAN are that it is a multi-point, multi-master bus with built in arbitration. It is meant for short packets, typically 8 bytes (CAN FD allows you to increase that).
If your camera is USB, why not just get a USB repeater cable or USB-over-ethernet gateway?
If there is already a CAN network in place that you are piggy-backing onto then you need to consider what impact you will have on the existing traffic.
If you are starting from scratch then of course CAN will work but it would be an odd choice.
Depending on if its CAN or CANFD (Affects the maximum bulk transfer packet size) you have higher level protocol options to packetise your images and send them over canbus like any other block of data.
For just reguarlar CAN your after part of the standard called J1939.21 Data Link Layer, there are public versions of this floating around online, however due to the agreement when purchasing the standard, I am not able to share the specifics from what I have.
Its on pages 27-28 of the 2001 revision.
Related
Let me start by saying, I am a complete newbie on microcontrollers. So please help!
I want to use a microcontroller with a stored memory of timestamps for one year. The reason being that I want to write a simple conditional which will trigger an output depending on these times of the day (e.g. today if time == X, set output = 1)
My question is, how can I get the timestamp data into the microcontroller? It is actually downloadable via an API - can I do an API call and download the information through the microcontroller, or is there another way to store the data into its memory?
A "microcontroller" is not a complete system and they are not all the same. It could be a lowly 8-bit 8051 running bare-metal code, or it could be a 32 bit chip capable of running Linux. There is a lot of additional hardware and software between a "microcontroller" and The Internet.
From a software point of view (and that is the scope in which the question is valid on StackOverflow), you need at least a TCP/IP stack and drivers for the network interface (Ethernet most commonly). How you store the data is entirely within your design; your system may have a filesystem, or it may just have a small amount of EEPROM, or you might store it in on-chip flash memory for example. You have to tailor your software solution to the hardware resources available on your system (and your system is not just the microcontroller).
Given a TCP/IP stack the "API" will be whatever that stack provides - it may be a complete BSD socket API or something more lightweight. It may or may not provide application layer protocols such as FTP, Telnet or SSH. For this simple application a proprietary application protocol would probably suffice allowing you to work at the TCP/IP socket level.
Another thing to consider is where time comes from. Will the system have an RTC (requiring an RTC crystal and battery), or will it get time via the Internet connection, GPS or other source?
Answer to your question depends on your design requirements and constrains:
what microcontroller do you want to use, and how much memory will it have available?
can it connect to the internet? Is internet connection available all the time?
how does it know what time it is?
do timestamps change over time? E.g. once downloaded can timestamps list become obsolete?
There are many possible approaches: you can download data manually and write the to SD card, or internal memory of microcontroller (if dataset is small). Or you can program microcontroller to download data using API. Just keep in mind its memory limitations. Many units have only 1-2kB of RAM, so downloading all data at once and storing it in RAM can become a problem.
I am a physicist, and I had a revelation a few weeks ago about how I might be able to use my personal computer to get much finer control over laboratory experiments than is typically the case. Before I ran off to try this out though, I wanted to check the feasibility with people who have more expertise than myself in such matters.
The idea is to use the i/o ports---VGA, ethernet, speaker jacks, etc.---on the computer to talk directly to the sensors and actuators in the experimental setup. E.g. cut open one side of an ethernet cable (with the other end attached to the computer) and send each line to a different device. I knew a postdoc who did something very similar using a BeagleBone. He wrote some assembly code that let him sync everything with the internal clock and used the GPIO pins to effectively give him a hybrid signal generator/scope that was completely programmable. It seems like the same thing should be possible with a laptop, and this would have the additional benefit that you can do data analysis from the same device.
The main potential difficulty that I foresee is that the hardware on a BeagleBone is designed with this sort of i/o in mind, whereas I expect the hardware on a laptop will probably be harder to control directly. I know for example (from some preliminary investigation, http://ask.metafilter.com/125812/Simple-USB-control-how-to-blink-an-LED-via-code) that USB ports will be difficult to access this way, and VGA is (according to VGA 15 pin port data read and write using Matlab) impossible. I haven't found anything about using other ports like ethernet or speaker jacks, though.
So the main question is: will this idea be feasible (without investing many months for each new variation of the hardware), and if so what type of i/o (ethernet, speaker jacks, etc.) is likely to be the best bet?
Auxiliary questions are:
Where can I find material to learn how I might go about executing this plan? I'm not even sure what keywords to plug in on Google.
Will the ease with which I can do this depend strongly on operating system or hardware brand?
The only cable I can think of for a pc that can get close to this would be a parallel printer cable which is pretty much gone away. It's a 25 wire cable that data is spread across so that it can send more data at the same time. I'm just not sure if you can target a specific line or if it's more of a left to right fill as data is sent.
To use one on a laptop today would definitely be difficult. You won't find any laptops with parallel ports. There are usb to parallel cables and serial to parallel cables but I would guess that the only control you would have it to the usb or serial interface and not the parallel.
As for Ethernet, you have 4 twisted pair with only 2 pair in use and 2 pair that are extra.
There's some hardware that available called Zwave that you might want to look into. Zwave will allow you to build a network of devices that communicate in a mesh. I'm not sure what kind of response time you need.
I actually just thought of something that might be a good solution. Check out security equipment. There's a lot of equipment available for pc's that monitor doors, windows, sensors, etc. That industry might what your looking for.
I think the easiest way would be to use the USB port as a Human Interface Device (HID) and using a custom built PIC program and a PIC that includes the USB functionality to encode the data to be sent to the computer and in that way be able to program it independently from the OS due to the fact that all mayor OS have the HID USB functionality.
Anyways if you used your MIC/VGA/HDMI whatever other port you still need a device to encode the data or transmit it, and another program inside the computer to decode that data being sent.
And remember that different hardware has different software (drivers) that might decode the raw data in other odd ways rendering your IO hardware dependent.
Hope this helps, but thats why the USB was invented in the first place to make it hardware and os independent.
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'm trying to design an efficient communication protocol between a micro-controller on one side and an ARM processor on a multi-core TI chip on the other side through SPI.
The requirements for the needed protocol:
1 - Multi-session with queuing support, as I have multiple sending/receiving threads, so it will be more than one application using this communication protocol and I need the protocol to handle queuing these requests (I will keep holding the buffer if the transmission is queue but I just need the protocol to manage scheduling the queues).
2 - Works over SPI as an underlying protocol.
3 - Simple error checking.
In this thread: "Simple serial point-to-point communication protocol", PPP was a recommended option, however I see PPP does only part of the job.
I also found Light weight IP (LwIP) project featuring PPP over serial (which I assume that I can use it over SPI), so I thought about the possibility of utilizing any of the upper layers protocols like TCP/UDP to do the rest of the required jobs. Fortunately, I found TI including LwIP as part of their ethernet SW in the starterware package, which I assume to ease porting at least on the TI chip side.
So, my questions are:
1 - Is it valid to use LwIP for this communication scheme? Won't this introduce much overhead due to IP headers which are not necessary for a point to point (on the chip level) communication and kill the throughput?
2 - Will the TCP or any similar protocol residing in LwIP handle the queuing of transmission requests, for example if I request transmission through a socket while the communication channel is busy transmitting/receiving request for another socket (session) of another thread, will this be managed by the protocol stack? If so, which protocol layer manages it?
3 - Is their a more efficient protocol stack than LwIP, that meets the above requirements?
Update 1: More points to consider
1 - SPI is the only available option, I use it with available GPIOs to indicate to the master when the slave has data to send.
2 - The current implemented (non-standard) protocol uses DMA with SPI, and a message format of《STX_MsgID_length_payload_ETX》with a fixed message fragments length, however the main drawback of the current scheme is that the master waits for a response on the message (not fragment) before sending another one, which kills the throughput and does not utilise the full duplex nature of SPI.
3- An improvement to this point was to use a kind of mailbox for receiving fragments, so a long message can be interrupted by a higher priority one so that fragments of a single message can arrive non sequentially, but the problem is that this design lead to complicating things especially that I don't have much available resources for many buffers to use the mailbox approach on the controller (master) side. So I thought that it's like I'm re-inventing the wheel by designing a protocol stack for a simple point to point link which may not be efficient.
4- What kind of higher level protocols can be normally used above SPI to establish multiple sessions and solve the queuing/scheduling of messages?
Update 2: Another useful thread "A good serial communications protocol/stack for embedded devices?"
Update 3: I had a look at Modbus protocol, it seems to specify the application layer then directly the data link layer for serial line communication, which sounds to skip the unnecessary overhead of network oriented protocols layers.
Do you think this will be a better option than LwIP for the intended purpose? Also, is there a widely used open source implementation like LwIP but for Modbus?
I think that perhaps you are expecting too much of the humble SPI.
An SPI link is little more a pair of shift registers one in each node. The master selects a single node to connect to its SPI shift register. As it shifts in its data, the slave simultaneously shifts data out. Data is not exchanged unless the master explicitly clocks the data out. Efficient protocols on SPI involve the slave having something useful to output while the master inputs. This may be difficult to arrange, so you usually need a means of indicating null data.
PPP is useful when establishing a connection between two arbitrary endpoints, when the endpoints are fixed and known a priori, PPP would serve no purpose other than to complicate things unnecessarily.
SPI is not a very sophisticated nor flexible interface and probably unsuited to heavyweight general purpose protocols such as TCP/IP. Since "addressing" on SPI is performed by physical chip-select, the addressing inherent in such protocols is meaningless.
Flow control is also a problem with SPI. The master has no way of determining that the slave has copied the data from SPI the shift register before pushing more data. If your slave SPI supports DMA you would be wise to use it.
Either way I suggest that you develop something specific to your purpose. Since SPI is not a network as such, you only need a means to address threads on the selected node. This could be as simple as STX<thread ID><length><payload>ETX.
Added 27 September 2013 in response to comments
Generally SPI as its names suggests is used to connect to peripheral devices, and in that context the protocol is defined by the peripheral. EEPROMS for example typically use a common or at least compatible command interface across vendors, and SD/MMC card SPI interface uses a standardised command test and protocol.
Between two microcontrollers, I would imagine that most implementations are proprietary and application specific. Open protocols are designed for generic interoperability and to achieve that might impose significant unnecessary overhead for a closed system, unless perhaps the nodes were running a system that already had a network stack built in.
I would suggest that if you do want to use a generic network stack that you should abstract the SPI with device drivers at each end that give the SPI a standard I/O stream interface (open(), close(), read(), write() etc.), then you can use the higher-level PPP and TCP/IP protocols (although PPP can probably be avoided since the connection is permanent). However that would only be attractive if both nodes already supported these protocols (running Linux for example), otherwise it will be significant effort and code for little benefit, and would certainly not be "efficient".
I assume you dont really want or have room for a full ip (lwip) stack on the microcontroller? This just sounds like a lot of overkill. Why not just roll your own simple packet structure to move the data items you need to move. Depending on how spi is supported on both sides you may or may not be able to use it to define the frame for your data, if not a simple start pattern, length and a trailing checksum and maybe tail pattern would suffice for finding packet boundaries in the stream (no different than a serial/uart solution). You can even use the PPP solution for that with a start pattern and I think end pattern with the payload using a two byte pattern whenever the start pattern happens to show up in the data. I dont remember all the details now.
Whatever your frame is then add a packet type and your handshakes, or if the data is going to just be microcontroller to arm then you dont even need to do that.
To get back to your direct question. Yes, I think that an ip stack (lwip or other) will introduce a lot of overhead. both bandwidth and more important the amount of code needed to support that stack will chew up rom/ram on both sides. If you ultimately need to present this data in an ip fashion (a website hosted by the embedded system) then somewhere in the path you need an ip stack, etc.
I cant imagine that lwip manages your queues for you. I assume you would need to do that yourself. the various queues might want to talk to a single driver that deals with the single spi bus (assuming there is a single spi bus with multiple chip selects). It also depends on how you are using the spi interface, if you are allowing the arm to talk to multiple microcontrollers and the packets of data are broken up into a little bit from this controller a little from that controller so that nobody has to wait to long before they get a few more bytes of data. Or will a complete frame have to move from one microcontroller before moving onto the next gpio interrupt to pull that guys data? The long and short of it is I would assume you have to manage the shared resource just like you would in any other situation where you have multiple users of a shared resource (rtos, full blown operating system, etc). I dont remember lwip that well at all but with a full blown berkeley sockets application interface the user could write separate applications where each application only cared about one TCP or UDP port and the libraries and drivers managed separating those packets out to each application as well as all of the rules for the IP stack.
If you are not already doing experiments with moving data over the spi interface(s) I would start with simple experiments first just to get the feel for how well it is or isnt going to work, the sizes of transfers you can do reliably per spi transction, etc. Your solution may naturally just fall out of those experiments.
I'm attempting to speed up a rather sluggish bootloader. Currently I'm sending data on a single USB HID output endpoint, and as it's a low-speed device I'm apparently limited to one 8-byte packet per 10 ms interval for a whopping 800 bytes/second.
Is it possible to increase the reporting frequency somehow? Or to use multiple output endpoints in a single interface or as part of a composite device? Or perhaps to abuse the control endpoint to send additional data?
Better compression is always an alternative I suppose, but it's an area of diminishing returns, and redesigning the hardware to allow full-speed USB isn't really an option.
For the record I'd be happy with a Windows-only solution.
Or perhaps to abuse the control endpoint to send additional data?
You can use "Vendor specific requests" for that. The TI TUSB3410 Chip works that way AFAIK. Many USB stacks have the hooks for them already in place.
This requires a driver or libusb on the host side, however.
I was able to speed up the upload by orders of magnitude by using SET_REPORT requests on the control endpoint, instead of declaring a separate interrupt out endpoint. That way you get all of the bandwidth available for control transfers.
Also using a larger report split into multiple segments helped reduce the number of SETUP packets needed.
Who says you are limited to an 8-byte packet per 10ms? I don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head, but I know you can send larger packets than that. I did an HID device and was using 64-byte packets. I think I could go larger, but that limit is probably hardware-specific. What hardware are you using?
Also, have you consulted USB in a NutShell?
The actual limit is 8 bytes every 10ms for low-speed devices, and 64 bytes every 1ms for high-speed devices, per interrupt-based endpoint.
So it seems that the first thing to try is switching to high-speed mode, if the hardware supports it. The next thing on the list is using multiple endpoints. If you really want to get the highest possible transfer rate, the HID class is a bad choice.