Calculate lpc1788 mips - embedded

have you ever calculated the mips of lpc1788 board? Recently I've calculated a result via following code running in rom:
volatile uint32_t tick;
void SysTick_Handler()
{
tick++;
}
unsigned long loops_per_ms;
extern void __delay(int n);
int calculate_mips()
{
int prec = 8;
unsigned long ji;
unsigned long loop;
loops_per_ms = 1 << 12;
while (loops_per_ms) {
ji = tick;
while (ji == tick) ;
ji = tick;
__delay(loops_per_ms);
if (ji != tick)
break;
loops_per_ms <<= 1;
}
loops_per_ms >>= 1;
loop = loops_per_ms >> 1;
while (prec--) {
loops_per_ms |= loop;
ji = tick;
while (ji == tick) ;
ji = tick;
__delay(loops_per_ms);
if (ji != tick)
loops_per_ms &= ~loop;
loop >>= 1;
}
return loops_per_ms / 500;
}
delay.s:
PUBLIC __delay
SECTION .text:CODE:REORDER(2)
THUMB
__delay
subs r0, r0, #1
bhi __delay
mov pc, lr
END
With IAR ide, I got loops_per_ms is 39936 and mips will be 79M, whil with Keil, I got a loops_per_ms is 29952 which means the mips is 59M.
The MCU speed is set to 120MHz, by datasheet the MIPS should be 1.25x120=150M, I think code running in ROM slow down the mips.
any body has some comments or other result?

You cannot measure MIPS in that way. You have no control over how many instructions the compiler will use to implement a particular high-level code source, and it will vary with optimisation level.
The core will achieve 1.25 MIPS per MHz, but that may be reduced depending on a number of factors. For example on Cortex-M on-chip Flash and on-chip RAM use separate buses, so that optimal performance is achieved when data is in RAM and code is in flash. If an instruction in flash needs to fetch data from flash the throughput will be reduced because the instruction fetch and the data fetch must be sequential, whereas a data fetch from RAM can occur in parallel. If you ran the code from RAM you would really notice a slow down since all data and instruction fetches would be sequential. Most Cortex-M parts employ a flash accelerator of some sort to compensate for slower flash memory to achieve zero-wait code execution in most cases, though it is possible to write code perversely to defeat such benefit. Other causes of reduced MIPS is bus latency caused by DMA operations and peripheral wait states.
The simplest and most accurate method of measuring MIPS for your particular application (which for the reasons mentioned above may vary from the optimal) is to use a trace capable debugger, which will capture every instruction executed over a period.

Related

Adafruit Trinket M0 (SAMD21) analog read rate slow

Why is the analog read rate seemingly slow (46 ksamples/s) when it should be fast (250 ksamples/s) for my Adafruit Trinket M0? See this simple Arduino code for details; why is PointCount only 46?
//TrinketReadRateTest
//27Nov2022
//Running on Adafruit Trinket M0, SAMD21
//Measures read times of analog reads on Trinket M0
//nothing at all connected to the Trinket
//according to the settings in this wiring.c file lines 160-173, samples per second should be = 250,000:
//C:\Users\<MyUserName>\AppData\Local\Arduino15\packages\adafruit\hardware\samd\1.7.11\cores\arduino\wiring.c
//in this loop, every PointCount is 2 samples, so in 2 millisecs, number of PointCounts should be:
//(.002 secs)(250000 samples/sec)(PointCounts/ 2 samples) = 250
//however, this routine gives a value of 46 WHY?
//if line 170 prescaler is set to DIV16 instead of DIV32, PointCounts gets to 66 (accuracy ???) so this wiring.c is being loaded
#define INPUT1 A3 //ATSAMD21G PA04
#define INPUT2 A4 //ATSAMD21G PA05
unsigned int Input1[1000];
unsigned int Input2[1000];
unsigned int PointCount = 0;
void setup() {
pinMode(INPUT1, INPUT);
pinMode(INPUT2, INPUT);
}
void loop() {
PointCount = 0;
unsigned long StartTime = micros();
do {
Input1[PointCount] = analogRead(INPUT1);
Input2[PointCount] = analogRead(INPUT2);
PointCount++;
} while (micros() - StartTime < 2000); //read 2 millisecs of data points as fast as they come
Serial.begin(9600); //keep serial off during data reads to avoid the question...
delay(1000);
Serial.println(PointCount);
Serial.end();
delay(1000);
}
I tried reading analog samples as fast as they would come. I expected to receive samples at a rate of 250000 per second. What actually resulted was a rate of 46000 samples per second.
Added 28Nov: the wiring.c file is not easy to find. If you want it:
download the tar.bz2 file:
https://adafruit.github.io/arduino-board-index/boards/adafruit-samd-1.7.11.tar.bz2
extract the tar file using 7-zip or whatever
goto cores\arduino\wiring.c
Here are the relevant lines of wiring.c:
//set to 1/(1/(48000000/32) * 6) = 250000 SPS
while(GCLK->STATUS.reg & GCLK_STATUS_SYNCBUSY);
GCLK->CLKCTRL.reg = GCLK_CLKCTRL_ID( GCM_ADC ) | // Generic Clock ADC
GCLK_CLKCTRL_GEN_GCLK0 | // Generic Clock Generator 0 is source
GCLK_CLKCTRL_CLKEN ;
while( ADC->STATUS.bit.SYNCBUSY == 1 ); // Wait for synchronization of registers between the clock domains
ADC->CTRLB.reg = ADC_CTRLB_PRESCALER_DIV32 | // Divide Clock by 32.
ADC_CTRLB_RESSEL_10BIT; // 10 bits resolution as default
ADC->SAMPCTRL.reg = 5; // Sampling Time Length
Adding this additional question 8Dec2022:
wiring.analog.c (in same folder as wiring.c) executes the analog routines. Line 369 of wiring.analog.c says the same thing that the SAMD21 data sheet says: "The first conversion after the reference is changed must not be used."
In lines 371-394, the analogRead routine for SAMD21, two reads are always made; the first to account for the statement above. But why do two reads for every analogRead? The analog reference is not changed with every read and is set prior to any reads. So why not just do one conversion after the reference is set? That way, there only needs to be one conversion per analogRead.
I moved the first conversion routine to the very end of analogReference. It speeds things up to PointCount = 79. Is this a problem? It does not seem to reduce accuracy.
Your second question is easier to answer than your first. The reason there are two ADC reads in the Arduino code is because there is a bug in the ADC hardware on the SAMD21. In the past, Arduino provided a calibration method that allowed you to correct for this instead of adding in the second read and throwing out the first garbage data. This was problematic for a number of reasons and eventually library was modified. There's an old hackaday article that provides a little more detail.
As for the ADC reads being slow, the limitation you're running into is a limitation of the SAMD library for Arduino. For reference, I am using the SAMD21 datasheet and the code from Arduino SAMD on GitHub. To start out with, the Clock speed should be 48Mhz. Using the DIV32 predivider, the ADC clock frequency is 1.5Mhz. Each ADC conversion from the SAMD21 library takes 63 clock cycles. Leaving you with ~23.8Khz. 23.8Khz * 2ms = 47.619 Conversions. Add on top of that the overhead caused by switching between the two input pins (I don't know the exact characterization but likely 1-2 clock pulses) and you'd end up with closer to 46 Conversions in 2ms.
63 clock pulses per conversion is comically high. Typically, the first read is closer to 20 pulses and subsequent ones are 13.5. There is another post on the electrical engineering Stack Exchange where someone tackles this and posts a link to their own library for improving the conversion speeds.

Can't get my DAC(PT8211) to work correctly using a PIC32MX uc and SPI

I'm just trying to learn to use external ADC and DAC (PT8211) with my PIC32MX534f06h.
So far, my code is just about sampling a signal with my ADC every time a timer-interrupt is triggered, then sending then same signal out to the DAC.
The interrupt and ADC part works fine and have been tested independently, but the voltages that my DAC outputs don't make much sens to me and stay at 2,5V (it's powered at 0 - 5V).
I've tried to feed the DAC various values ranging from 0 to 65534 (16bits DAC so i guess it should be the expected range of the values to feed to it, right?) voltage stays at 2.5V.
I've tried changing the SPI configuration, using different SPIs (3 and 4) and DACs (I have one soldered to my pcb, soldered to SPI3, and one one breadboard, linked to SPI4 in case the one soldered on my board was defective).
I made sure that the chip selection line works as expected.
I couldn't see the data and clock that are transmissed since i don't have a scope yet.
I'm a bit out of ideas now.
Chip selection and SPI configuration settings
signed short adc_value;
signed short DAC_output_value;
int Empty_SPI3_buffer;
#define Chip_Select_DAC_Set() {LATDSET=_LATE_LATE0_MASK;}
#define Chip_Select_DAC_Clr() {LATDCLR=_LATE_LATE0_MASK;}
#define SPI4_CONF 0b1000010100100000 // SPI on, 16-bit master,CKE=1,CKP=0
#define SPI4_BAUD 100 // clock divider
DAC output function
//output to external DAC
void DAC_Output(signed int valueDAC) {
INTDisableInterrupts();
Chip_Select_DAC_Clr();
while(!SPI4STATbits.SPITBE); // wait for TX buffer to empty
SPI4BUF=valueDAC; // write byte to TX buffer
while(!SPI4STATbits.SPIRBF); // wait for RX buffer to fill
Empty_SPI3_buffer=SPI4BUF; // read RX buffer
Chip_Select_DAC_Set();
INTEnableInterrupts();
}
ISR sampling the data, triggered by Timer1. This works fine.
ADC_input inputs the data in the global variable adc_value (12 bits, signed)
//ISR to sample data
void __ISR( _TIMER_1_VECTOR, IPL7SRS) Test_data_sampling_in( void)
{
IFS0bits.T1IF = 0;
ADC_Input();
//rescale the signed 12 bit audio values to unsigned 16 bits wide values
DAC_output_value = adc_value + 2048; //first unsign the signed 12 bit values (between 0 - 4096, center 2048)
DAC_output_value = DAC_output_value *16; // the scale between 12 and 16 bits is actually 16=65536/4096
DAC_Output(DAC_output_value);
}
main function with SPI, IO, Timer configuration
void main() {
SPI4CON = SPI4_CONF;
SPI4BRG = SPI4_BAUD;
TRISE = 0b00100000;
TRISD = 0b000000110100;
TRISG = 0b0010000000;
LATD = 0x0;
SYSTEMConfigPerformance(80000000L); //
INTCONSET = _INTCON_MVEC_MASK; /* Set the interrupt controller for multi-vector mode */
//
T1CONbits.TON = 0; /* turn off Timer 1 */
T1CONbits.TCKPS = 0b11; /* pre-scale = 1:1 (T1CLKIN = 80MHz (?) ) */
PR1 = 1816; /* T1 period ~ ? */
TMR1 = 0; /* clear Timer 1 counter */
//
IPC1bits.T1IP = 7; /* Set Timer 1 interrupt priority to 7 */
IFS0bits.T1IF = 0; /* Reset the Timer 1 interrupt flag */
IEC0bits.T1IE = 1; /* Enable interrupts from Timer 1 */
T1CONbits.TON = 1; /* Enable Timer 1 peripheral */
INTEnableInterrupts();
while (1){
}
}
I would expect to see the voltage at the ouput of my DAC to mimic those I put at the input of my ADC, instead the DAC output value is always constant, no matter what I input to the ADC
What am i missing?
Also, when turning the SPIs on, should I still manually manage the IO configuration of the SDI SDO SCK pins using TRIS or is it automatically taken care of?
First of all I agree that the documentation I first found for PT8211 is rather poor. I found extended documentation here. Your DAC (PT8211) is actually an I2S device, not SPI. WS is not chip select, it is word select (left/right channel). In I2S, If you are setting WS to 0, that means the left channel. However it looks like in the extended datasheet I found that WS 0 is actually right channel (go figure).
The PIC you've chosen doesn't seem to have any I2S hardware so you might have to bit bash it. There is a lot of info on I2S though ,see I2S bus specification .
There are some slight differences with SPI and I2C. Notice that the first bit is when WS transitions from high to low is the LSB of the right channel. and when WS transitions from low to high, it is not the LSB of the left channel. Note that the output should be between 0.4v to 2.4v (I2S standard), not between 0 and 5V. (Max is 2.5V which is what you've been seeing).
I2S
Basically, I'd try it with the proper protocol first with a bit bashing algorithm with continuous flip flopping between a left/right channel.
First of all, thanks a lot for your comment. It helps a lot to know that i'm not looking at a SPI transmission and that explains why it's not working.
A few reflexions about it
I googled Bit bashing (banging?) and it seems to be CPU intensive, which I would definately try to avoid
I have seen a (successful) projet (in MikroC) where someone transmit data from that exact same PIC, to the same DAC, using SPI, with apparently no problems whatsoever So i guess it SHOULD work, somehow?
Maybe he's transforming the data so that it works? here is the code he's using, I'm not sure what happens with the F15 bit toggle, I was thinking that it was done to manage the LSB shift problem. Here is the piece of (working) MikroC code that i'm talking about
valueDAC = valueDAC + 32768;
valueDAC.F15 =~ valueDAC.F15;
Chip_Select_DAC = 0;
SPI3_Write(valueDAC);
Chip_Select_DAC = 1;
From my understanding, the two biggest differences between SPI and I2S is that SPI sends "bursts" of data where I2S continuously sends data. Another difference is that data sent after the word change state is the LSB of the last word.
So i was thinking that my SPI is triggered by a timer, which is always the same, so even if the data is not sent continuously, it will just make the sound wave a bit more 'aliased' and if it's triggered regularly enough (say at 44Mhz), it should not be SO different from sending I2S data at the same frequency, right?
If that is so, and I undertand correctly, the "only" problem left is to manage the LSB-next-word-MSB place problem, but i thought that the LSB is virtually negligible over 16bit values, so if I could just bitshift my value to the right and then just fix the LSB value to 0 or 1, the error would be small, and the format would be right.
Does it sounds like I have a valid 'Mc-Gyver-I2S-from-my-SPI' or am I forgetting something important?
I have tried to implement it, so far without success, but I need to check my SPI configuration since i'm not sure that it's configured correctly
Here is the code so far
SPI config
#define Chip_Select_DAC_Set() {LATDSET=_LATE_LATE0_MASK;}
#define Chip_Select_DAC_Clr() {LATDCLR=_LATE_LATE0_MASK;}
#define SPI4_CONF 0b1000010100100000
#define SPI4_BAUD 20
DAaC output function
//output audio to external DAC
void DAC_Output(signed int valueDAC) {
INTDisableInterrupts();
valueDAC = valueDAC >> 1; // put the MSB of ValueDAC 1 bit to the right (becase the MSB of what is transmitted will be seen by the DAC as the LSB of the last value, after a word select change)
//Left channel
Chip_Select_DAC_Set(); // Select left channel
SPI4BUF=valueDAC;
while(!SPI4STATbits.SPITBE); // wait for TX buffer to empty
SPI4BUF=valueDAC; // write 16-bits word to TX buffer
while(!SPI4STATbits.SPIRBF); // wait for RX buffer to fill
Empty_SPI3_buffer=SPI4BUF; // read RX buffer (don't know why we need to do this here, but we do)
//SPI3_Write(valueDAC); MikroC option
// Right channel
Chip_Select_DAC_Clr();
SPI4BUF=valueDAC;
while(!SPI4STATbits.SPITBE); // wait for TX buffer to empty
SPI4BUF=valueDAC; // write 16-bits word to TX buffer
while(!SPI4STATbits.SPIRBF); // wait for RX buffer to fill
Empty_SPI3_buffer=SPI4BUF;
INTEnableInterrupts();
}
The data I send here is signed, 16 bits range, I think you said that it's allright with this DAC, right?
Or maybe i could use framed SPI? the clock seems to be continous in this mode, but I would still have the LSB MSB shifting problem to solve.
I'm a bit lost here, so any help would be cool

Why do two identical processes don't take the double CPU load

I am using a Raspberry Pi 3 and basically stepped over a little tripwire.
I have a very big and complicated program that takes away a lot of memory and has a big CPU load. I thought it was normal that if I started the same process while the first one was still running, it would take the same amount of memory and especially double the CPU Load. I found out that it doesn't take away more memory and does not affect the CPU load.
To find out if this behavior came from my program, I wrote a tiny c++ program that has extremely high memory usage, here it is:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
for(int i = 0; i<100; i++) {
float a[100][100][100];
for (int i2 = 0; i2 < 99; ++i2) {
for (int i3 = 0; i3 < 99; ++i3){
for (int i4 = 0; i4 < 99; ++i4){
a[i2][i3][i4] = i2*i3*i4;
cout << a[i2][i3][i4] << endl;
}
}
}
}
return 0;
}
The CPU-load is about at 30 % of the max-level, I started the code in one terminal. Strangely, when I started it in another terminal at the same time, it didnt affect the CPU load. I concluded that this behaviour couldn't come from my program.
Now I want to know:
Is there a "lock" that ensures that a certain type of process does not grill your cores?
Why don't two identical processes double the CPU load?
Well, I found out that there is a "lock" that makes sure a process doesn't take away all memory and makes the CPU load go up to 100%. It seems that than more processes there are, than more CPU load is there, but not in a linear way.
Additionally, the code I wrote to look for the behaviour has only high memory usage, the 30% level came from the cout in the standard library . Multiple processes can use the command at the same time without increasing the CPU load, but it affects the speed of the printing.
When I found out that, I got suspicious about the programs speed. I used the analytics in my IDE for c++ to find out the duration of my original program, and indeed it was a bit more that two times slower.
That seems to be the solution I was looking for, but I think this is not really applicable to a large audience since the structure of the Raspberry Pi is very particular. I don't know how this works for other systems.
BTW: I could have guessed that there is a lock. I mean, if you start 10 processes that take away 15% of the CPU load max level, you would have 150% CPU usage. IMPOSSIBLE!

Measuring Program Execution Time with Cycle Counters

I have confusion in this particular line-->
result = (double) hi * (1 << 30) * 4 + lo;
of the following code:
void access_counter(unsigned *hi, unsigned *lo)
// Set *hi and *lo to the high and low order bits of the cycle
// counter.
{
asm("rdtscp; movl %%edx,%0; movl %%eax,%1" // Read cycle counter
: "=r" (*hi), "=r" (*lo) // and move results to
: /* No input */ // the two outputs
: "%edx", "%eax");
}
double get_counter()
// Return the number of cycles since the last call to start_counter.
{
unsigned ncyc_hi, ncyc_lo;
unsigned hi, lo, borrow;
double result;
/* Get cycle counter */
access_counter(&ncyc_hi, &ncyc_lo);
lo = ncyc_lo - cyc_lo;
borrow = lo > ncyc_lo;
hi = ncyc_hi - cyc_hi - borrow;
result = (double) hi * (1 << 30) * 4 + lo;
if (result < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error: counter returns neg value: %.0f\n", result);
}
return result;
}
The thing I cannot understand is that why is hi being multiplied with 2^30 and then 4? and then low added to it? Someone please explain what is happening in this line of code. I do know that what hi and low contain.
The short answer:
That line turns a 64bit integer that is stored as 2 32bit values into a floating point number.
Why doesn't the code just use a 64bit integer? Well, gcc has supported 64bit numbers for a long time, but presumably this code predates that. In that case, the only way to support numbers that big is to put them into a floating point number.
The long answer:
First, you need to understand how rdtscp works. When this assembler instruction is invoked, it does 2 things:
1) Sets ecx to IA32_TSC_AUX MSR. In my experience, this generally just means ecx gets set to zero.
2) Sets edx:eax to the current value of the processor’s time-stamp counter. This means that the lower 64bits of the counter go into eax, and the upper 32bits are in edx.
With that in mind, let's look at the code. When called from get_counter, access_counter is going to put edx in 'ncyc_hi' and eax in 'ncyc_lo.' Then get_counter is going to do:
lo = ncyc_lo - cyc_lo;
borrow = lo > ncyc_lo;
hi = ncyc_hi - cyc_hi - borrow;
What does this do?
Since the time is stored in 2 different 32bit numbers, if we want to find out how much time has elapsed, we need to do a bit of work to find the difference between the old time and the new. When it is done, the result is stored (again, using 2 32bit numbers) in hi / lo.
Which finally brings us to your question.
result = (double) hi * (1 << 30) * 4 + lo;
If we could use 64bit integers, converting 2 32bit values to a single 64bit value would look like this:
unsigned long long result = hi; // put hi into the 64bit number.
result <<= 32; // shift the 32 bits to the upper part of the number
results |= low; // add in the lower 32bits.
If you aren't used to bit shifting, maybe looking at it like this will help. If lo = 1 and high = 2, then expressed as hex numbers:
result = hi; 0x0000000000000002
result <<= 32; 0x0000000200000000
result |= low; 0x0000000200000001
But if we assume the compiler doesn't support 64bit integers, that won't work. While floating point numbers can hold values that big, they don't support shifting. So we need to figure out a way to shift 'hi' left by 32bits, without using left shift.
Ok then, shifting left by 1 is really the same as multiplying by 2. Shifting left by 2 is the same as multiplying by 4. Shifting left by [omitted...] Shifting left by 32 is the same as multiplying by 4,294,967,296.
By an amazing coincidence, 4,294,967,296 == (1 << 30) * 4.
So why write it in that complicated fashion? Well, 4,294,967,296 is a pretty big number. In fact, it's too big to fit in an 32bit integer. Which means if we put it in our source code, a compiler that doesn't support 64bit integers may have trouble figuring out how to process it. Written like this, the compiler can generate whatever floating point instructions it might need to work on that really big number.
Why the current code is wrong:
It looks like variations of this code have been wandering around the internet for a long time. Originally (I assume) access_counter was written using rdtsc instead of rdtscp. I'm not going to try to describe the difference between the two (google them), other than to point out that rdtsc does not set ecx, and rdtscp does. Whoever changed rdtsc to rdtscp apparently didn't know that, and failed to adjust the inline assembler stuff to reflect it. While your code might work fine despite this, it might do something weird instead. To fix it, you could do:
asm("rdtscp; movl %%edx,%0; movl %%eax,%1" // Read cycle counter
: "=r" (*hi), "=r" (*lo) // and move results to
: /* No input */ // the two outputs
: "%edx", "%eax", "%ecx");
While this will work, it isn't optimal. Registers are a valuable and scarce resource on i386. This tiny fragment uses 5 of them. With a slight modification:
asm("rdtscp" // Read cycle counter
: "=d" (*hi), "=a" (*lo)
: /* No input */
: "%ecx");
Now we have 2 fewer assembly statements, and we only use 3 registers.
But even that isn't the best we can do. In the (presumably long) time since this code was written, gcc has added both support for 64bit integers and a function to read the tsc, so you don't need to use asm at all:
unsigned int a;
unsigned long long result;
result = __builtin_ia32_rdtscp(&a);
'a' is the (useless?) value that was being returned in ecx. The function call requires it, but we can just ignore the returned value.
So, instead of doing something like this (which I assume your existing code does):
unsigned cyc_hi, cyc_lo;
access_counter(&cyc_hi, &cyc_lo);
// do something
double elapsed_time = get_counter(); // Find the difference between cyc_hi, cyc_lo and the current time
We can do:
unsigned int a;
unsigned long long before, after;
before = __builtin_ia32_rdtscp(&a);
// do something
after = __builtin_ia32_rdtscp(&a);
unsigned long long elapsed_time = after - before;
This is shorter, doesn't use hard-to-understand assembler, is easier to read, maintain and produces the best possible code.
But it does require a relatively recent version of gcc.

How to make Timer1 more accurate as a real time clock?

I have PIC18F87J11 with 8 MHz oscillator and I am using timer1 as real time clock. At this moment I have it toggle an LED every 1 minute. I noticed it does work perfect fine the first few times but slowly it starts toggling the LED every 59 seconds. Then every few minutes it keeps going down to 58, 57, etc. I don't know if its impossible to get an accurate clock using internal oscillator or if I need external oscillator. My settings look right for timer1, I just hope I can resolve this issue with the current hardware.
Prescaler 1:8, TMR1 Preload = 15536, Actual Interrupt Time : 200 ms
// Timer 1 Settings
RCONbits.IPEN = 1; // Enable interrupt system priority feature
INTCONbits.GIEL = 1; // Enable low priority interrupts
// 1:8 prescalar
T1CONbits.T1CKPS1 = 1;
T1CONbits.T1CKPS0 = 1;
// Use Internal Clock
T1CONbits.TMR1CS = 0;
// Timer1 overflow interrupt
PIE1bits.TMR1IE = 1;
IPR1bits.TMR1IP = 0; // Timer 1 -> Low priority interrupt group
PIE1bits.TMR1IE = 1; // Enable Timer1 interrupt
// TMR1 Preload = 15536;
TMR1H = 0x3C;
TMR1L = 0xB0;
Interrupt Routine
void interrupt low_priority lowISR(void) {
if (PIR1bits.TMR1IF == 1) {
oneSecond++;
if (oneSecond == 5) {
minute_Counter++;
if (minute_Counter >= 60) {
// One minute passed
Printf("\r\n One minute Passed");
ToggleLed();
minute_Counter = 0;
}
oneSecond = 0;
}
// TMR1 Preload = 15536;
TMR1H = 0x3C;
TMR1L = 0xB0;
PIR1bits.TMR1IF = 0;
}}
The internal oscillator is a simple RC oscilator (a resistor/capacitor time constant determines its frequency), this kind of circuit may be accurate to only +/-10% over the operating temperature range of the device, and the device will be self-heating due to normal operating power dissipation.
From the data sheet:
An external crystal or other accurate external clock source is required to get accurate timing. Alternatively, if you have some other stable and accurate, but low frequency clock source, such as output from an RTC with a 38768 Hz crystal, you can use that to calibrate the internal RC oscillator and dynamically adjust it with the OSCTUNE register - by using a timer gated by the low frequency source, you can determine the actual frequency of INTOSC and adjust accordingly - it will not be perfect, but it will be better - but no better than the precision of the calibrating source of course.
Some devices have a die temperature sensor that can also be used to compensate, but that is not available on your device.
The RC error can cause serial communications mistiming to the extent that you cannot communicate with a device using asynchronous (UART) serial comms.
There are some stuff in the datasheet you linked, "2.5.3 INTERNAL OSCILLATOR OUTPUT FREQUENCY AND TUNING", on p38
The datasheet says that
The INTOSC frequency may drift as VDD or temperature changes".
Are VDD and temperature stable ?
It notes three ways to deal with this by tuning the OSCTUNE register. The three of them would need an external "oscillator" :
dealing with errors of EUSART...this signal should come from somewhere.
a peripheral clock
cpp module in capture mode. You may use any stable AC signal as input.
Good luck !
Reload the Timer as soon as it expires, the delay between timer overflow and rearm is affecting the total time. So this will solve your problem.
void interrupt low_priority lowISR(void)
{
if (PIR1bits.TMR1IF)
{
PIR1bits.TMR1IF = 0;
TMR1H = 0x3C;
TMR1L = 0xAF;
/* rest of the code here */
. . . .
}
}
One more recommendation is not to load up the isr, keep it simple.
For all timing, time and frequency applications the first and most important thing to do is to CALIBRATE THE CRYSTAL OSCILLATOR!!! The oscillator itself and its crystal MUST run exactly (to better than 1 part per million = 1ppm) of its nominal frequency. Crystals straight out of a factory (except some very specialized and expensive ones = 100's of $) are not running exactly at their nominal frequency. If the calibration is not done, all time and frequency related functions will be off, because the oscillator frequency is used as reference for all PICs internal functions. The calibration must be done against an accurate frequency counter by adjusting one of the capacitors from crystal pins to ground. Any processor routines for frequency (and time) calibration are not accurate enough.