I'd like to test a SPI slave on my STM32F4 via JTAG boundary scanning methods (best would be using OpenOCD, instead of other special tool).
Does somebody know details and typical pitfalls of such thing?
What I found was this site, whereas this neatly explains boundary scanning.
I am thankful for any hint on that topic.
As the linked site points out, testing your µC's output on the SPI pins through boundary scan will suffer from very low speed (because you have to feed the corresponding bit-banging commands through the boundary-scan protocol, which is far from efficient).
Using the STM32F4 controller, I therefore suggest you to keep the CPU in debug (break), and to set up the GPIOs and SPI through JTAG (as if the firmware were doing this from inside). Then, you are free to put entire data bytes/words into the TX register and poll the SPI status and RX register. This is one or two levels above the (plain) boundary scan method, but it will be quite easy to implement.
(Only) if you want to take this idea even some steps further, you can use JTAG first to switch the clock settings to higher speed or to add DMA (and write larger amounts of data to RAM before triggering the SPI transfer).
I see in STM32F103 series, the GPIO extra interrupt is set to the EXTI. And GPIOx_0 (x=A,B,C...)is set to EXTI0. Take an example, if I want to use PA0 and PB0 as interrupt input,can I set them to EXTI0 at the same time? I mean in the EXTI0_Handler function I read the value of the input register of PA0 and PB0 to judge which one input a electrical level I want to carry different function by using if...else. I use it in STM8 successfully but there seems a little problem in STM32. Can you help me? Thanks.
The answer explains the problem clearly. The picture takes an example that why the four bits will be changed if you set different pins. You can see that the four bit affect by each other status if you config other pins. I ignore this problem before.
If you look into the STM32F103 Reference Manual p. 209, you will see that there is actually a multiplexer that decides if PA0, PB0, ... or PG0 is connected to the EXTI0 signal:
STM32F103 ExtI0 schematic
That means that you cannot connect both PA0 and PB0 to EXTI0. In fact, there are four specific bits in the alternate function input/output register (AFIO) which let you choose which pin is connected to the EXTI0 signal. Here, these bits are located in the control register AFIO_EXTICR1. See the AFIO register map in the same document for further information.
Now I don't know which setup you are using, but as I recall, I had separate functions for different interrupt request routines (for EXTI0, EXTI1 and so on).
I want to interface two microcontrollers with a UART interface and I search a protocol to exchange data between them.
In practice, I want to exchange data periodically (ie: sensors reading) and also data on event (GPIO state). I have around 100-200 bytes to exchange every 100 milli second.
Does anybody know a protocol or library to achieve this kind of task ?
For now, I see protobuf and nano protobuff ? Is there something else ?
It would be nice if I could add a software layer over the UART and use "virtual data stream" like if it was a TCP/IP connection to N ports.
Any idea ?
Thanks
I think the most straight forward way is to roll your own.
You'll find RS232 drivers in the manufacturers chip support library.
RS232 is a stream oriented transport, that means you will need to encode your messages into some frameing structure when you send them and detect frame boundaries on the receiver side. A clever and easy to use mechanism to do this is "Consistent Overhead Byte Stuffing".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_Overhead_Byte_Stuffing
This simple algorithm turns zeros in your messages into some other value, so the zero-byte can be used to detect start and end of frame. If a byte gets corrupted on the way you can even resynchronize to the stream and keep going.
The code on Wikipedia should be easy enough even for the smallest micro-processors.
Afterwards you can define your message format. You can probably keep it very simple and directly send your data-structures as is.
Suggestion for a simple message format:
Byte-ID Meaning
---------------------------------
0 Destination port number
1 message type (define your own)
2 to n message data
If you want to send variable length messages you can either send out a length byte or derive the length from the output of the Constant Overhead Byte Stuffing framing.
By the way, UART/RS232 is nice and easy to work with, but you may also want to take a look at SPI. The SPI interface is more suitable to exchange data between two micro-controllers. It is usually faster than RS232 and more robust because it has a dedicated clock-line.
How about this: eRPC https://community.nxp.com/docs/DOC-334083
The eRPC (Embedded Remote Procedure Call) is a Remote Procedure Call (RPC) system created by NXP. An RPC is a mechanism used to invoke a software routine on a remote system using a simple local function call. The remote system may be any CPU connected by an arbitrary communications channel: a server across a network, another CPU core in a multicore system, and so on. To the client, it is just like calling a function in a library built into the application. The only difference is any latency or unreliability introduced by the communications channel.
I have use it in a two processor embedded system, a cortext-A9 CPU with a Context-M4 MCU, which communicate each other with SPI/GPIO.
Erpc can run over UART, SPI, rpmsg and network(tcp). even when using serial or SPI as transport tunnel, it can do bidirectional
calls and with very minimal footprint.
Simple serial point-to-point communication protocol
http://www.zipplet.co.uk/index.php/content/openformats_mise
It depends if you need master/slave implementation, noise protection, point-point or multi-point (and in this case collision detection), etc
but, as our colleague said, I would go with the simplest solution that fits the problem, following the KISS principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle
Just add some header information like ID and length, if necessary CRC checking, and be happy :)
Try Microcontroller Interconnect Network (MIN) 1.0:
https://github.com/min-protocol/min
It has framing using byte-stuffing to keep receiver sync, 16-bit Fletcher's algorithm for checksum, an identifier for use by the application and a variable payload of up to 15 bytes.
There's embedded C code there plus also a Python implementation to make it easier to talk to a PC.
As the first answer starts, the simplest result is to roll your own. Define your header (the "format" above) as needed, perhaps including status information so each processor knows that the other is working properly. I have had success with a protocol that includes
2 byte ascii prefix and suffix such as "[" and "]" so that a
protocol analyzer can show you message boundaries.
The number of bytes.
The command ID (parsed to indicate what command handler to use.
Command arguments (I used 3 32 bit words).
A CRC or checksum to verify transfer integrity
The parser then recognizes the [* as the start of the message, and dispatches the body to the command handler for the particular command ID with the associated arguments as long as the checksum matches.
I would like to create a scenario to directly access IOs via USB by using FT232R.
In more detail, scenario is the following: I would like to feed an LIN transceiver IC by a FT232R USB device. However, the FT232R as a USB-serial-converter outputs UART signals, which includes a start bit as well as a stop bit. For me, it is required to not have these start and stop bits, even though they are standardized in UART protocol.
My questions:
Is it possible to use the bang mode of this device to avoid start/stop bits and transfer raw data? Then, how to program the code for doing this?
If not, are there any USB transceiver, which have to possibility via COM/driver access to fulfil my requirement?
Thanks a lot in advance for your help!
Yes, the chip provides 4 pins that can be used for generic bit banging. Here is an application note describing how to use bit banging mode.
I am building a small device with its own CPU (AVR Mega8) that is supposed to connect to a PC. Assuming that the physical connection and passing of bytes has been accomplished, what would be the best protocol to use on top of those bytes? The computer needs to be able to set certain voltages on the device, and read back certain other voltages.
At the moment, I am thinking a completely host-driven synchronous protocol: computer send requests, the embedded CPU answers. Any other ideas?
Modbus might be what you are looking for. It was designed for exactly the type of problem you have. There is lots of code/tools out there and adherence to a standard could mean easy reuse later. It also support human readable ASCII so it is still easy to understand/test.
See FreeModBus for windows and embedded source.
There's a lot to be said for client-server architecture and synchronous protocols. Simplicity and robustness, to start. If speed isn't an issue, you might consider a compact, human-readable protocol to help with debugging. I'm thinking along the lines of modem AT commands: a "wakeup" sequence followed by a set/get command, followed by a terminator.
Host --> [V02?] // Request voltage #2
AVR --> [V02=2.34] // Reply with voltage #2
Host --> [V06=3.12] // Set voltage #6
AVR --> [V06=3.15] // Reply with voltage #6
Each side might time out if it doesn't see the closing bracket, and they'd re-synchronize on the next open bracket, which cannot appear within the message itself.
Depending on speed and reliability requirements, you might encode the commands into one or two bytes and add a checksum.
It's always a good idea to reply with the actual voltage, rather than simply echoing the command, as it saves a subsequent read operation.
Also helpful to define error messages, in case you need to debug.
My vote is for the human readable.
But if you go binary, try to put a header byte at the beginning to mark the beginning of a packet. I've always had bad luck with serial protocols getting out of sync. The header byte allows the embedded system to re-sync with the PC. Also, add a checksum at the end.
I've done stuff like this with a simple binary format
struct PacketHdr
{
char syncByte1;
char syncByte2;
char packetType;
char bytesToFollow; //-or- totalPacketSize
};
struct VoltageSet
{
struct PacketHdr;
int16 channelId;
int16 voltageLevel;
uint16 crc;
};
struct VoltageResponse
{
struct PacketHdr;
int16 data[N]; //Num channels are fixed
uint16 crc;
}
The sync bytes are less critical in a synchronous protocol than in an asynchronous one, but they still help, especially when the embedded system is first powering up, and you don't know if the first byte it gets is the middle of a message or not.
The type should be an enum that tells how to intepret the packet. Size could be inferred from type, but if you send it explicitly, then the reciever can handle unknown types without choking. You can use 'total packet size', or 'bytes to follow'; the latter can make the reciever code a little cleaner.
The CRC at the end adds more assurance that you have valid data. Sometimes I've seen the CRC in the header, which makes declaring structures easier, but putting it at the end lets you avoid an extra pass over the data when sending the message.
The sender and reciever should both have timeouts starting after the first byte of a packet is recieved, in case a byte is dropped. The PC side also needs a timeout to handle the case when the embedded system is not connected and there is no response at all.
If you are sure that both platforms use IEEE-754 floats (PC's do) and have the same endianness, then you can use floats as the data type. Otherwise it's safer to use integers, either raw A/D bits, or a preset scale (i.e. 1 bit = .001V gives a +/-32.267 V range)
Adam Liss makes a lot of great points. Simplicity and robustness should be the focus. Human readable ASCII transfers help a LOT while debugging. Great suggestions.
They may be overkill for your needs, but HDLC and/or PPP add in the concept of a data link layer, and all the benefits (and costs) that come with a data link layer. Link management, framing, checksums, sequence numbers, re-transmissions, etc... all help ensure robust communications, but add complexity, processing and code size, and may not be necessary for your particular application.
USB bus will answer all your requirements. It might be very simple usb device with only control pipe to send request to your device or you can add an interrupt pipe that will allow you to notify host about changes in your device.
There is a number of simple usb controllers that can be used, for example Cypress or Microchip.
Protocol on top of the transfer is really about your requirements. From your description it seems that simple synchronous protocol is definitely enough. What make you wander and look for additional approach? Share your doubts and we will try to help :).
If I wasn't expecting to need to do efficient binary transfers, I'd go for the terminal-style interface already suggested.
If I do want to do a binary packet format, I tend to use something loosely based on the PPP byte-asnc HDLC format, which is extremely simple and easy to send receive, basically:
Packets start and end with 0x7e
You escape a char by prefixing it with 0x7d and toggling bit 5 (i.e. xor with 0x20)
So 0x7e becomes 0x7d 0x5e
and 0x7d becomes 0x7d 0x5d
Every time you see an 0x7e then if you've got any data stored, you can process it.
I usually do host-driven synchronous stuff unless I have a very good reason to do otherwise. It's a technique which extends from simple point-point RS232 to multidrop RS422/485 without hassle - often a bonus.
As you may have already determined from all the responses not directly directing you to a protocol, that a roll your own approach to be your best choice.
So, this got me thinking and well, here are a few of my thoughts --
Given that this chip has 6 ADC channels, most likely you are using Rs-232 serial comm (a guess from your question), and of course the limited code space, defining a simple command structure will help, as Adam points out -- You may wish to keep the input processing to a minimum at the chip, so binary sounds attractive but the trade off is in ease of development AND servicing (you may have to trouble shoot a dead input 6 months from now) -- hyperterminal is a powerful debug tool -- so, that got me thinking of how to implement a simple command structure with good reliability.
A few general considerations --
keep commands the same size -- makes decoding easier.
Framing the commands and optional check sum, as Adam points out can be easily wrapped around your commands. (with small commands, a simple XOR/ADD checksum is quick and painless)
I would recommend a start up announcement to the host with the firmware version at reset - e.g., "HELLO; Firmware Version 1.00z" -- would tell the host that the target just started and what's running.
If you are primarily monitoring, you may wish to consider a "free run" mode where the target would simply cycle through the analog and digital readings -- of course, this doesn't have to be continuous, it can be spaced at 1, 5, 10 seconds, or just on command. Your micro is always listening so sending an updated value is an independent task.
Terminating each output line with a CR (or other character) makes synchronization at the host straight forward.
for example your micro could simply output the strings;
V0=3.20
V1=3.21
V2= ...
D1=0
D2=1
D3=...
and then start over --
Also, commands could be really simple --
? - Read all values -- there's not that many of them, so get them all.
X=12.34 - To set a value, the first byte is the port, then the voltage and I would recommend keeping the "=" and the "." as framing to ensure a valid packet if you forgo the checksum.
Another possibility, if your outputs are within a set range, you could prescale them. For example, if the output doesn't have to be exact, you could send something like
5=0
6=9
2=5
which would set port 5 off, port 6 to full on, and port 2 to half value -- With this approach, ascii and binary data are just about on the same footing in regards to computing/decoding resources at the micro. Or for more precision, make the output 2 bytes, e.g., 2=54 -- OR, add an xref table and the values don't even have to be linear where the data byte is an index into a look-up table ...
As I like to say; simple is usually better, unless it's not.
Hope this helps a bit.
Had another thought while re-reading; adding a "*" command could request the data wrapped with html tags and now your host app could simply redirect the output from your micro to a browser and wala, browser ready --
:)