I am trying to access /dev/usb/hiddevX files via ioctl and read functions.
First of all I start a blocking read (new thread) to receive hid-events.
This works fine as long as I do not access the device via ioctl. After this I do not get any hid events anymore (the blocking read does not return).
For all operations the same file-handler is used (read/ioctl).
Is this normal beheavior? Is there something I am doing wrong?
Thank you very much,
Tom
Related
I was able to make a working HID USB stack on my "StartUSB for PIC" board for the 18F2550 microcontroller. I based it on one of the MLA libraries, which was made for the 18F45K50 (MLA 2018_11_26, hid_custom, picdem_fs_usb_k50.x), but I converted it to work with the 18F2550 (there might have been easier ways, but only learned to work with PIC about 1 month ago). On the host side, I'm using LibUsbDotNet (also here, there might be easier ways - the documentation on this library really sucks) on a Windows 10 machine.
I'm using the HID class, full speed, and all seems to work. Although, I get some random errors on the host PC (see below), but doing one close/re-open cycle on the host side when getting the error is kind of solving it. Dirty, but it works. So I kind of ignore this now.
Win32Error:Win32Error:GetOverlappedResult Ep 0x01
995:The I/O operation has been aborted because of either a thread exit or an application request.
I'm not an expert on USB (yet). But all examples I'm seeing are based on 1) you send first a command to the device and 2) then you retrieve the answer from the device. I did some performance tests, and see that this indeed shows that I can do about 500 cycles/second. I think that is correct, because each cycle, sending command and retrieving answer, each takes 1 msec.
But do I really need to send a command? Can't I just keep reading endlessly, and when the device has somthing to say, it does send the data in an IN transaction, and when not it ignores which creates a timeout on the host side. That would mean that I can poll at 1000 cycles/second? Unfortunately, I have tried it by changing my implementation on the PIC, but I get very weird results. I think I have issues with suspend mode. That brings me to another question - how can I make the device get out of suspend mode (means that not the host, but the device should be triggering this event). I have searched the MLA library for command such as "wakeup", "resume", ... but couldn't find anything.
So, to summarize, 2 questions:
Conceptual: Can I send data from device to host without being requested for it by a command from the host?
For PIC experts: How can I have a device trigger for a wakeup from suspend mode?
And indeed, the answer is Yes on the first question.
In the meantime, I found another link on the web that contains a Visual Studio C# implementation of a USB library including all the source files.
If you're interested, this is the link
This C# host implementation works as a charm. Without sending a command to the device, I get notified immediately if a button is pressed. Great!
It also proofs that my earlier device implementation based on the original MicroChip MLA, is 100% correct. I stress tested the implementation by sending a "toggle LED command" as fast as I could, and I reach 1000 commands/second. Again great!
I think that LibUsbDotNet isn't that perfect after all. As I wrote above, I get rather unstable communication (Win32Error). But with this implementation, I don't get a single error, even after running for half an hour # 1000 commands/second.
So for me, case closed.
The title is the question. I'm using libaums to transfer files both ways using BufferedInput/OutputStream, calling close() at the end. And then I'm closing UsbMassStorageDevice and exiting the app.
However, in Settings->Storage I see that USB OTG storage stays mounted. And it can be unmounted only there, in Settings, in a popup. There doesn't seem to be a legal Android API to unmount USB drive from code.
Since I'm building a minimal UI/minimal interaction app, this is a major hassle. However, I've unplugged the stick many times without explicitly unmounting and the copied files were always valid (used diff to check).
So - does copying a file and calling close with libaums guarantee complete transfer of the file? Or is there some underlying OS memory buffer which can't be forced to flush, so unplugging the drive without unmounting can result in corrupt files?
good question!
You should be fine because USB communication is always acknowledged. That means if your call to close returns without an exception it is guaranteed that the USB drive got the data replied with an "Ok" to the host. You can see that particular part of the code [1] where I am checking for a successful answer from the drive.
[1] https://github.com/magnusja/libaums/blob/develop/libaums/src/main/java/com/github/mjdev/libaums/driver/scsi/ScsiBlockDevice.java#L175-L191
My app communicates with a simple USB device as follows:
The app sends commands (2 or 3 bytes each) to the USB device by using WriteFile (kernel32.dll).
For each command that is send, the USB device sends a short response, which the PC receives using ReadFile (kernel32.dll).
Reading and writing is done asynchronously, using GetOverlappedResult to check the status of an operation.
Testing on 2 out of 3 PCs, the app and device function perfectly: all responses are received 100% reliably.
Under identical tests on the third PC, approximately 50% of the ReadFile requests do not return any data - the status remains as pending (ERROR_IO_INCOMPLETE) forever.
In other words, approximately for every 2 commands sent, one response is received.
Because the device functions perfectly with the other PCs, it lead me to believe that the problem might be occuring inside Windows, in the underlying code which is called by ReadFile (I presume some lower level USB driver code).
Question:
Please could you advise what debugging tool is most useful to investigate this? With my current knowledge, the internal workings of ReadFile are quite opaque.
The PC which is experiencing the issue is running Windows 8.0
You could try DebugView. Run as admin.
Go to "Capture", enable "Capture Kernel", enable "Enable Verbose Kernel Output".
This might help to investigate errors on Kernel level, if any occured.
I'm writing a huge bulk tranfer to a real time USB device, but I would like to receive some interrupts at the same time.
It looks like the bulk is stalling the interrupt probing, and even with a perpetual interrupt probing loop they get "stuck", and I get a few interrupts after each bulk, but not everything in the queue and all the new ones are stuck (generated after the end of the bulk).
At the theoretical level javascript is visibly mono-thread, and the bulk transfer seem to be in the main thread albeit its non-blockig-friendly API (it freezes the browser). So I don't even know what I'm supposed to do. Web workers can't access the "chrome" object.
Is there some demo code for that somewhere ? I can't find any non-trivial uses of the chrome USB api on google.
It's very difficult to post code do a custom device, but the thing is there: https://github.com/nraynaud/webgcode/blob/gh-pages/webapp/index.js#L110
it seems that as soon as data is ready for the host (such as when I use WriteFile to send a command to the HID in which I tell the HID to give back some data such as the port value) and the in packet ready bit is set, the host reads it (as confirmed by another USB interrupt) before ReadFile ever is called. ReadFile is later used to put this data into a buffer on the host. Is this the way it should happen? I would have expected the ReadFile call to cause the in interrupt.
So here is my problem: I have a GUI and HID that work well together. The HID can do I2C to another IC, and the GUI can tell the HID to do I2C just fine. Upon startup, the GUI reads data from the HID and gets a correct value (say, 0x49). Opening a second GUI to the same HID does the same initial data read from the HID and gets the correct value (say, 0x49; it should be the same as the first GUI's read). Now, if I go to the first GUI, and do an I2C read, the readback value is 0x49, which was the value that the 2nd GUI had requested from the HID. It seems that the HID puts this value on the in endpoint for all devices attached to it. Thus the 1st GUI incorrectly thinks that this is the correct value.
Per Jan Axelson's HID FAQ, "every open handle to the HID has its own report queue. Every report a device sends goes into all of the queues so multiple applications can read the same report." I believe this is my problem. How do I purge this and clear the endpoint before the 1st GUI does its request so that the correct value (which the HID does send per the debugger) gets through? I tried HidD_FlushQueue, but it keeps returning False (not working; keep getting "handle is invalid" errors, although the handle is valid per WriteFile/ReadFile success with the same handles). Any ideas?
Thanks!
You might not like this suggestion, but one option would be to only allow one GUI at a time to have an open handle. Use your favorite resource allocation lock mechanism and make the GUIs ask for the HID resource before opening the handle and using it.