I'm in trouble with programming my Arduino. I've two XBee Series 2 Modules and an Arduino UNO. I use the XBee-API library from: http://code.google.com/p/xbee-api/.
I generate three RemoteATRequest Packets (0x17) to control a Digital Pin of the Remote Sleepy Node and send it out of a SoftwareSerial to the XBee Coordinator which is plugged via a Sparkfun XBee Arduino Shield (https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10854) to the Arduino UNO. The Communication works fine. Every Request Packet is sending out to the Remote. And for every Request Packet a Remote Packet is received. I checked this with a Serial Monitor and a RS232<-> TTL Converter. But in my Arduino Software it seems to be that only one Remote Packet is received. Curious is the point that when I send the Request Packets in the time the Remote is sleeping than I read three Response if it is awake and takes the Requests from the Coordinator.
Does anyone try the same or hase the same problems? I've tried so much until know another Baudrate, delays befor sending out. Nothing works.
My recollection of ZigBee and/or 802.15.4 is that the parent node for a sleepy end device will only hold/queue a single frame for when the sleepy device wakes up. And note that in ZigBee it's only guaranteed to queue it for 7.5 seconds. You may need to modify your code to send a single Remote AT Request at a time, and wait for the response before sending another.
This page has a good description about how the MAC layer works:
Once the frame is assembled, there are actually two ways to send it.
If its going to another router or an end device whose receiver is
always on, the frame will be sent directly via the radio. Otherwise,
if the destination is a sleepy end device, the frame will need to be
sent as an indirect transfer. The frame will go to the indirect queue
until the destination device wakes up and polls the parent. Once the
poll comes in, the frame will get sent to the destination.
It would be great if the XBee module supported a frame type that contains multiple AT commands, but as far as I can tell, that isn't an option.
Related
I have a third party device that is UART programmable.
I need to create a USB - UART bridge with a functional password (programming only after entering the correct password)
generated the code using the latest version of STM32CubeMX for Atollic TrueSTUDIO for STM32 9.3.0 ...
I transfer data between USB and UART through a buffer (one for usb-uart, and another one for uart-usb)
when I try to transfer several characters everything is OK, but when I try to transfer a large data packet, problems start due to the fact that the USB speed is much higher than the UART ...
there are two questions:
1.How do I tell USB that I need to stop transferring data and wait until the UART (buffer) is busy
2.How on the side of the microcontroller to get the baud rate set on the PC (set when the terminal is connected to the virtual COM port)
USB provides flow control. That's what you need to implement. A general introduction can be found here:
https://medium.com/#manuel.bl/usb-for-microcontrollers-part-4-handling-large-amounts-of-data-f577565c4c7d
Basically, the setup for the USB-to-UART direction should be:
Indicate that the code is ready to receive a USB packet
Receive a USB packet
Indicate that you are no longer ready to receive a USB packet
Transmit the data via UART
Start over
Step 0: Initial setup
Call USBD_CDC_SetRxBuffer to set the buffer for receiving the USB data. Unless you use several buffers to achieve higher throughput, a single call at the start of the program is sufficient.
Step 1: Ready to receive data
Call USBD_CDC_ReceivePacket. Other than what the name implies, this function indicates that the app is ready to receive data. It immediately returns before the data has actually been received.
Step 2: Receive a USB packet
You don't need to do anything here. It will happen automatically. Once it's complete, CDC_Itf_Receive will be called.
Step 3: Indicate that you are no longer ready to receive a USB packet
Nothing to do here. This happens automatically whenever a packet has been received (and double buffering is not enabled).
Step 4: Transmit the data via UART
I guess you know how to do this. It's up to you whether you want to do it in a blocking fashion or using DMA.
Since a callback is involved, you cannot put this code into the main loop. It might be possible to put all code into CDC_Itf_Receive if blocking UART is used. It would appear in the order 2, 3, 4, 1. Additionally, initialization is needed (0 and 1).
In the UART-to-USB direction, you would need to implement flow control on the UART. The USB flow control is managed by the host. Even though USB is much faster than UART, flow control is relevant as the application on the host can process data as slow as it likes to.
Regarding question 2: I'm not sure I understand it... The microcontroller cannot set the baud rate on the host. Either the host can specify a baud rate (transmitted over USB and applied to UART), or if the UART has a fixed baud rate, you can ignore baud rate (any baud rate set on the host side will work as it does not apply to USB).
I am new to Wireshark and capturing packets and all Stuff. Let me get it to the straight.
I have a hardware which outputs its data over Ethernet using a UDP Broadcast. I Can directly plug a Ethernet Cable to a In-line RJ-45 Coupler (attached to the hardware) and my PC Running Wireshark.
REQUIREMENTS : I need to Capture RAW Data which my hardware is broadcasting so that it can be given to other team so as to know the format in which it is providing for further post processing.
What I Did : Initially , I connected the Ethernet Cable from my home and Started capturing the packets which didn't make any sense to me.
Can you please point out if I am going in correct direction ? Sorry if its a very basic question, but raw data from the hardware is important for my further tasks....
As far as any software can understand a wire you will always get a packet. Between you (in front of a computer) and the cable in the in the RJ-45 jack sits a NIC (network interface controller, i.e. your network card).
Your Ethernet NIC will read the current on the cable (in manchester encoding for ethernet) and synchronize itself to any Ehternet traffic on that cable. What does "synchronizing" mane in there? In front of any Ehternet traffic come 64 alternate bits of 0s and 1s which are meant to synchronize the clocks on both communicating NICs. Without proper clock synchronization some data may be misinterpreted.
But why I am talking about clock synchronization? Because if you want the data as RAW as it is on the cable you will not get it. A NIC will never send any synchronization bit to the rest of the computer, therefore it is absolutely impossible to read exactly what is on the cable by using software.
On the other hand I find hard to believe you want the RAW data as RAW as that. After the synchronization bits come an Ethernet encapsulated packed. Yup, Ethernet uses packets. They're link layer packets (layer 2 in OSI).
And wireshark gives you exactly that (in most cases, see note at the end for two exceptions to this rule): every Ehternet packet that the NIC understands, manages to sync, and manages to read without collision is sent to the kernel and then read by wireshark. A cable has electrical interference and has no provision against collisions (it's just a piece of cooper!) therefore the NIC abstracts things like interferences and collisions.
I'll repeat it once more: After abstracting the synchronization bits, sender collisions (which turn the cable into one huge interference) and plain interferences; all that remains is a stream of packets, one after the other.
Extra Notes
NICs sometimes do ignore some Ethernet packets: packets that are not directed to their MAC. This can be changed by enabling promiscuous mode (available in most NICs). This is irrelevant for broadcast packets.
There are exception to the rule of wireshark getting all the traffic coming from the NIC:
If the traffic comes incredibly quick, wireshark may drop out of kernel schedule and not see some packets. It happens, nothign can be done about it.
If you listen on all interfaces (as opposed to selecting a single interface to listen at), wireshark will strip the Ethernet (or Wifi) headers. This is a wireshark hack needed to make output files uniform (and possible to be read by other applications).
TL;DR, wireshark output (pcap) is pretty much just the stream of packets that it got from the NIC, one after the other. That is as RAW as you can get with software.
I'm currently trying to make 3 arduinos talking to each other with ZigBee, and it's kinda working.
But I currently use AT mode on the Bees and it's a little bit harsh when I have to switch the destination address in the Coordinator of the network (1 Coordinator and 2 Routers)
Can I put the Coordinator in API mode (to make it easier to switch addresses with xbee-api for Arduino) but still be able to communicate with the AT routers and be able to send/receive data from them?
Thanks for your answer :)
Absolutely, and it's common to set up a network like that. You can have AT routers connected to "dumb" hosts that just send streams of serial data, and an API coordinator that receives from multiple routers, identifying the source of each message using the headers of the API frames, and able to send unicast messages back to individual routers or broadcast messages to all routers.
Make use of the 0x10 Transmit Request API frame to send from the coordinator to the routers. You'll receive either 0x90 or 0x91 frames (depending on the setting of ATAO).
I am working on an embedded project which includes two half duplex UARTS, and one full duplex UART.
UART1 is connected to Device A. UART2 is connected to Device B, and UART3 is connected to the PC. UART1 and UART2 are half-duplex, thus RX/TX modes have to be configured properly.
When a signal on UART1 is triggered, UART2 fetches some data from Device B. That data is put into a buffer, and then transmitted back to UART1, AND UART3. Device A consumes the data, and sends more items on UART1, which then has to be passed to UART2 for Device B to respond.
I was thinking about an efficient state machine that can handle the switching modes between TX/RX mode, and so far my UART code is interrupt driven. What would be some ways to tackle the flow of this program?
I don't think you will need a state machine for this case. Why not just hook up all interrupts accordingly and just forward anything received from one devivce to the other(s)?
You may want to include a TX (ring-)buffer to accomodate for different speeds of each UART and then just have a RX-ISR write the data received to the appropriate TX buffer(s), from where it will then be consumed by the other UARTs' UDRE-ISRs.
I have an embedded device (source) which is sending out a stream of (audio) data in chunks of 20 ms (= about 330 bytes) by means of a UDP packets. The network volume is thus fairly low at about 16kBps (practically somewhat more due to UDP/IP overhead). The device is running the lwIP stack (v1.3.2) and connects to a WiFi network using a WiFi solution from H&D Wireless (HDG104, WiFi G-mode). The destination (sink) is a Windows Vista PC which is also connected to the WiFi network using a USB WiFi dongle (WiFi G-mode). A program is running on the PC which allows me to monitor the amount of dropped packets. I am also running Wireshark to analyze the network traffic directly. No other clients are actively sending data over the network at this point.
When I send the data using broadcast or multicast many packets are dropped, sometimes upto 15%. However, when I switch to using UDP unicast, the amount of packets dropped is negligible (< 2%).
Using UDP I expect packets to be dropped (which is OK in my Audio application), but why do I see such a big difference in performance between Broadcast/Multicast and unicast?
My router is a WRT54GS (FW v7.50.2) and the PC (sink) is using a trendnet TEW-648UB network adapter, running in WiFi G-mode.
This looks like it is a well known WiFi issue:
Quoted from http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3433451
The 802.11 (Wi-Fi) standards specify support for multicasting as part of asynchronous services. An 802.11 client station, such as a wireless laptop or PDA (not an access point), begins a multicast delivery by sending multicast packets in 802.11 unicast data frames directed to only the access point. The access point responds with an 802.11 acknowledgement frame sent to the source station if no errors are found in the data frame.
If the client sending the frame doesnt receive an acknowledgement, then the client will retransmit the frame. With multicasting, the leg of the data path from the wireless client to the access point includes transmission error recovery. The 802.11 protocols ensure reliability between stations in both infrastructure and ad hoc configurations when using unicast data frame transmissions.
After receiving the unicast data frame from the client, the access point transmits the data (that the originating client wants to multicast) as a multicast frame, which contains a group address as the destination for the intended recipients. Each of the destination stations can receive the frame; however, they do not respond with acknowledgements. As a result, multicasting doesnt ensure a complete, reliable flow of data.
The lack of acknowledgments with multicasting means that some of the data your application is sending may not make it to all of the destinations, and theres no indication of a successful reception. This may be okay, though, for some applications, especially ones where its okay to have gaps in data. For instance, the continual streaming of telemetry from a control valve monitor can likely miss status updates from time-to-time.
This article has more information:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/08/44/57/PDF/RR-5947.pdf
One very interesting side-effect of the multicast implementation (at the WiFi MAC layer) is that as long as your receivers are wired, you will not experience any issues (due to the acknowledgement on the receiver side, which is really a unicast connection). However, with WiFi receivers (as in my case), packet loss is enormous and completely unacceptable for audio.
Multicast does not have ack packets and so there is no retransmission of lost packets. This makes perfect sense as there are many receivers and it's not like they can all reply at the same time (the air is shared like coax Ethernet). If they were all to send acks in sequence using some backoff scheme it would eat all your bandwidth.
UDP streaming with packet loss is a well known challenge and is usually solved using some type of forward error correction. Recently a class known as fountain codes, such as Raptor-Q, shows promise for packet loss problem in particular when there are several unreliable sources for the data at the same time. (example: multiple wifi access points covering an area)