I work for a company that created firmware for several device using FreeRTOS. Lately our request for new features has surpassed how much work our firmware engineers are capable of, but we can't afford to hire anyone new right now either. Making even tiny changes requires firmware people to go in and modify things at a very low level.
I've been looking for some sort of interpreted language project for FreeRTOS that would let us implement new features at a higher level. Ideally I would like to get things eventually so the devices become closer to generic computers with us writing drivers, rather than us having to implement every feature ourselves.
Are there any FreeRTOS projects that interpret java, python or similar bytecode?
I've looked on google, but since I'm not a firmware engineer myself I'm not sure if I'm looking for the right keywords.
Thanks everyone
I don't think the RTOS, or even the OS, matters too much here if the code is portable. Depending on your input & output scheme, you'll probably need to do a little porting.
Regarding embeddable scripting languages, the 2 I'm familiar with are LUA and PAWN.
I think there are versions of Python & other such languages ported to embedded systems, but they tend to be the embedded Linux variety. Depending on your platform (no idea if it's a little MCU with 8K ROM or an embedded PC) that might be an option.
There are no interpreted languages out there that are "made" to use FreeRTOS, or any other microcontroller threading library (loosely called an 'RTOS' within the e2e community).
However, languages which I have first hand experience using in embedded systems that are (a) written in C, and (b) small enough to embedded in a microcontroller include:
LUA (suitable for almost anything, even some PICs)
Python (suitable for most ARM architectures, anyways, with more than 1mb ram)
I do not have first-hand experience with it, but Ruby may be as easy to embed as Python.
Instead of looking for FreeRTOS-specific interpreters, you might try looking for any interpreters for your particular microcontroller, or microcontroller in general. It might be possible to interface them with FreeRTOS or turn the interpreter into a task.
There seems to be someone trying to go for Lua on FreeRTOS (pic32).
I guess your question boils down ultimately to finding ways of increasing the level of abstraction above the low-level RTOS mechanisms. While it is perhaps true that interpreted languages work at somewhat higher level of abstraction than C, you can do much better than that by applying methods based on event-driven frameworks and state machines. Such event-driven frameworks have been around for decades and have been proven in countless embedded systems in all sorts of domains. Today, virtually every modeling tool for embedded systems capable of code-generation (e.g., Rational-Rose RT, Rhapsody, etc.) contains a variant of such a state-machine framework.
But event-driven, state-machine frameworks can be used also without big tools. The QP state machine frameworks (state-machine.com), for example, do everything that a conventional RTOS can do, only more efficiently, plus many things that an RTOS can't.
When you start using modern event-driven programming paradigm with state machines, your problems will change. You will no longer struggle with 15 levels of convoluted if-else statements, and you will stop worrying about semaphores or other such low-level RTOS mechanisms. Instead, you'll start thinking at a higher level of abstraction about state machines and events exchanged among them. After you experience this quantum leap, you will never want to go back to the raw RTOS and the spaghetti code.
Related
I come from a programming background and not messed around too much with hardware or firmware (at most a bit electronics and Arduino).
What is the motivation in using hardware description languages (HDL) such as Verilog and VHDL over programming languages like C or some Assembly?
Is this issue at all a matter of choice?
I read that hardware, which its firmware is written in an HDL, has a clear advantage in running instructions in parallel. However, I was surprised to see discussions expressing doubts whether to write firmware in C or Assembly (how is Assembly appropriate if you don't necessarily have a CPU?) but I concluded it's also an option.
Therefore, I have a few questions (don't hesitate to explain anything):
A firmware really can be written either in HDL or in a software programming language, or it's just another way to perform the same mission? I'd love to real-world examples. What constraints resulting from each option?
I know that a common use of firmware over software is in hardware accelerators (such as GPUs, network adapters, SSL accelerators, etc). As I understand it, this acceleration is not always necessary, but only recommended (for example, in the case of SSL and acceleration of complex algorithms). Can one choose between firmware and software in all cases? If not, I'd be happy to cases in which firmware is clearly and unequivocally appropriate.
I've read that the firmware mostly burned on ROM or flash. How it is represented in there? In bits, like software? If so, what's the profound difference? Is it the availability of adapted circuits in the case of firmware?
I guess I made a mistake here and there in some assumptions, please forgive me. Thank you!
The term "firmware" is at best ill defined, and I believe that is probably the cause of your confusion.
Historicallym - before the availability of programmable logic devices - the term "firmware" has been used to refer to code stored-in and executed-from read-only memory (ROM). At a time when the only available ROM technology was mask-ROM where the code was burned into the device at manufacture of the silicon and therefore unchangeable without replacing the chip - that was pretty "firm". Even with later programmable read-only memory (PROM), which could be programmed post-manufacture, because it was one-time programmable (OTP), the term still applied.
With the introduction of UV erasable EEPROM, firmware became perhaps less "firm", but the lack of in-circuit programmability and the need to expose the device to UV to erase it still made replacement of the embedded software a chore - normally requiring removal of the chip, placing it in the eraser for an hour or so, then programming it in a dedicated programmer.
The advent of NOR Flash memory, where code could be stored and executed directly from the device, but also readily changed in-circuit, the term firmware in this context has become less common. However it is still used (perhaps mainly by older practitioners) to refer to embedded software stored and executed from a random-access, read-only memory device as opposed to loaded into RAM from a file system.
The use for the term firmware to refer to programmable logic configuration is newer and has probably come about simply because it is hardware, but the configuration is written much like software using a high-level language.
The upshot of this is that you do not choose
"Verilog and VHDL over programming languages like C or some Assembly"
because in each context the term firmware simply refers to a different concept.
It would be best to avoid the term firmware altogether as it means different things to different people or in different contexts.
There is perhaps some further confusion form the fact that some hardware description languages are based on software development languages - such as Handle C, which is a C-like hardware description language.
This question would not have much arise some time ago, but with current platforms you can now translate between C and HDL languages (instead of using Handel-C extension of C, from the 90's), mainly between C and behavioral VHDL. And a lot of newer tools provided by enterprises, like Xilinx Electronic System Level Design Ecosystem, or Impulse-C (http://www.impulseaccelerated.com/products_universal.htm)
It is important to know though that as C is a middle level language, and VHDL is, as stated a Hrdware Description Language. C can only handle sequential instructions while VHDL allows both sequential and concurrent executions.
And even though a C program can be successfully written with pure logical or algorithmic thinking,
a successful VHDL programmer needs thorough working knowledge of the hardware circuits. being able to predict how a given code will be implemented in hardware.
In both languages you care about the resource usage, but in a different way (Unless you are programming for resource-constrained devices). But when it comes to VHDL, apart from the memory, other logic elements are limited in a FPGA (where you normally put the VHDL code in).
First the background, specifics of my question will follow:
At the company that I work at the platform we work on is currently the Microchip PIC32 family using the MPLAB IDE as our development environment. Previously we've also written firmware for the Microchip dsPIC and TI MSP families for this same application.
The firmware is pretty straightforward in that the code is split into three main modules: device control, data sampling, and user communication (usually a user PC). Device control is achieved via some combination of GPIO bus lines and at least one part needing SPI or I2C control. Data sampling is interrupt driven using a Timer module to maintain sample frequency and more SPI/I2C and GPIO bus lines to control the sampling hardware (ie. ADC). User communication is currently implemented via USB using the Microchip App Framework.
So now the question: given what I've described above, at what point would I consider employing an RTOS for my project? Currently I'm thinking of these possible trigger points as reasons to use an RTOS:
Code complexity? The code base architecture/organization is still small enough that I can keep all the details in my head.
Multitasking/Threading? Time-slicing the module execution via interrupts suffices for now for multitasking.
Testing? Currently we don't do much formal testing or verification past the HW smoke test (something I hope to rectify in the near future).
Communication? We currently use a custom packet format and a protocol that pretty much only does START, STOP, SEND DATA commands with data being a binary blob.
Project scope? There is a possibility in the near future that we'll be getting a project to integrate our device into a larger system with the goal of taking that system to mass production. Currently all our projects have been experimental prototypes with quick turn-around of about a month, producing one or two units at a time.
What other points do you think I should consider? In your experience what convinced (or forced) you to consider using an RTOS vs just running your code on the base runtime? Pointers to additional resources about designing/programming for an RTOS is also much appreciated.
There are many many reasons you might want to use an RTOS. They are varied & the degree to which they apply to your situation is hard to say. (Note: I tend to think this way: RTOS implies hard real time which implies preemptive kernel...)
Rate Monotonic Analysis (RMA) - if you want to use Rate Monotonic Analysis to ensure your timing deadlines will be met, you must use a pre-emptive scheduler
Meet real-time deadlines - even without using RMA, with a priority-based pre-emptive RTOS, your scheduler can help ensure deadlines are met. Paradoxically, an RTOS will typically increase interrupt latency due to critical sections in the kernel where interrupts are usually masked
Manage complexity -- definitely, an RTOS (or most OS flavors) can help with this. By allowing the project to be decomposed into independent threads or processes, and using OS services such as message queues, mutexes, semaphores, event flags, etc. to communicate & synchronize, your project (in my experience & opinion) becomes more manageable. I tend to work on larger projects, where most people understand the concept of protecting shared resources, so a lot of the rookie mistakes don't happen. But beware, once you go to a multi-threaded approach, things can become more complex until you wrap your head around the issues.
Use of 3rd-party packages - many RTOSs offer other software components, such as protocol stacks, file systems, device drivers, GUI packages, bootloaders, and other middleware that help you build an application faster by becoming almost more of an "integrator" than a DIY shop.
Testing - yes, definitely, you can think of each thread of control as a testable component with a well-defined interface, especially if a consistent approach is used (such as always blocking in a single place on a message queue). Of course, this is not a substitute for unit, integration, system, etc. testing.
Robustness / fault tolerance - an RTOS may also provide support for the processor's MMU (in your PIC case, I don't think that applies). This allows each thread (or process) to run in its own protected space; threads / processes cannot "dip into" each others' memory and stomp on it. Even device regions (MMIO) might be off limits to some (or all) threads. Strictly speaking, you don't need an RTOS to exploit a processor's MMU (or MPU), but the 2 work very well hand-in-hand.
Generally, when I can develop with an RTOS (or some type of preemptive multi-tasker), the result tends to be cleaner, more modular, more well-behaved and more maintainable. When I have the option, I use one.
Be aware that multi-threaded development has a bit of a learning curve. If you're new to RTOS/multithreaded development, you might be interested in some articles on Choosing an RTOS, The Perils of Preemption and An Introduction to Preemptive Multitasking.
Lastly, even though you didn't ask for recommendations... In addition to the many numerous commercial RTOSs, there are free offerings (FreeRTOS being one of the most popular), and the Quantum Platform is an event-driven framework based on the concept of active objects which includes a preemptive kernel. There are plenty of choices, but I've found that having the source code (even if the RTOS isn't free) is advantageous, esp. when debugging.
RTOS, first and foremost permits you to organize your parallel flows into the set of tasks with well-defined synchronization between them.
IMO, the non-RTOS design is suitable only for the single-flow architecture where all your program is one big endless loop. If you need the multi-flow - a number of tasks, running in parallel - you're better with RTOS. Without RTOS you'll be forced to implement this functionality in-house, re-inventing the wheel.
Code re-use -- if you code drivers/protocol-handlers using an RTOS API they may plug into future projects easier
Debugging -- some IDEs (such as IAR Embedded Workbench) have plugins that show nice live data about your running process such as task CPU utilization and stack utilization
Usually you want to use an RTOS if you have any real-time constraints. If you don’t have real-time constraints, a regular OS might suffice. RTOS’s/OS’s provide a run-time infrastructure like message queues and tasking. If you are just looking for code that can reduce complexity, provide low level support and help with testing, some of the following libraries might do:
The standard C/C++ libraries
Boost libraries
Libraries available through the manufacturer of the chip that can provide hardware specific support
Commercial libraries
Open source libraries
Additional to the points mentioned before, using an RTOS may also be useful if you need support for
standard storage devices (SD, Compact Flash, disk drives ...)
standard communication hardware (Ethernet, USB, Firewire, RS232, I2C, SPI, ...)
standard communication protocols (TCP-IP, ...)
Most RTOSes provide these features or are expandable to support them
I've experience in doing desktop and web programming for a few years. I would like to move onto doing some embed system programming. After asking the initial question, I wonder which hardware / software IDE should I start on...
Arduino + Arduino IDE?
Atmel AVR + AVR Studio 4?
Freescale HCS12 or Coldfire + CodeWarrior?
Microchip PIC+ MPLAB?
ARM Cortex-M3 + ARM RealView / WinARM
Or... doesn't matter?
Which development platform is the easiest to learn and program in (take in consideration of IDE usability)?
Which one is the easiest to debug if something goes wrong?
My goal is to learn about "how IO ports work, memory limitations/requirements incl. possibly paging, interrupt service routines." Is it better to learn one that I'll use later on, or the high level concept should carry over to most micro-controllers?
Thanks!
update: how is this dev kit for a start? Comment? suggestion?
Personally, I'd recommend an ARM Cortex-M3 based microcontroller. The higher-power ARM cores are extremely popular, and these low-power versions could very well take off in a space that is still littered with proprietary 8/16-bit cores. Here is a recent article on the subject: The ARM Cortex-M3 and the convergence of the MCU market.
The Arduino is very popular for hobbyist. Atmel's peripheral library is fairly common across processor types. So, it would smooth a later transition from an AVR to an ARM.
I don't mean to claim that an ARM is better than an AVR or any other core. Choosing an MCU for a commercial product usually comes down to peripherals and price, followed by existing code base and development tools. Besides, microcontrollers are general much much simpler than a desktop PC. So, it's really not that hard to move form one to another after you get the hang of it.
Also, look into FreeRTOS if you are interested in real-time operating system (RTOS) development. It's open source and contains a nice walk through of what an RTOS is and how they have implemented one. In fact, their walk-through example even targets an AVR.
Development tools for embedded systems can be very expensive. However, there are often open source alternatives for the more open cores like ARM and AVR. For example, see the WinARM and WinAVR projects.
Those tool-chains are based on GCC and are thus also available (and easier to use IMHO) on non-Windows platforms. If you are familiar with using GCC, then you know that there are an abundance of "IDE's" to suit your taste from EMACS and vi (my favorite) to Eclipse.
The commercial offerings can save you a lot of headaches getting setup. However, the choice of one will very much depend on your target hardware and budget. Also, Some hardware support direct USB debugging while others may require a pricey JTAG adapter.
Other Links:
Selection Guide of Low Cost Tools for Cortex-M3
Low-Cost Cortex-M3 Boards:
BlueBoard-LPC1768-H ($32.78)
ET-STM32 Stamp Module ($24.90)
New Arduino to utilize an ARM Cortex-M3 instead of an AVR microcontroller.
Given that you already have programming experience, you might want to consider getting an Arduino and wiping out the firmware to do your own stuff with AVR Studio + WinAVR. The Arduino gives you a good starting point in understanding the electronics side of it. Taking out the Arduino bootloader would give you better access to the Atmel's innards.
To get at the goals you're setting out, I would also recommend exploring desktop computers more deeply through x86 programming. You might build an x86 operating system kernel, for instance.
ARM is the most widely used embedded architecture and covers an enormous range of devices from multiple vendors and a wide range of costs. That said there are significant differences between ARM7, 9, 11, and Cortex devices - especially Cortex. However if getting into embedded systems professionally is your aim, ARM experience will serve you well.
8 bit architectures are generally easier to use, but often very limited in both memory capacity and core speeds. Also because they are simple to use, 8-bit skills are relatively easy to acquire, so it is a less attractive skill for a potential employer because it is easy to fulfil internally or with less experienced (and therefore less expensive) staff.
However if this is a hobby rather than a career, the low cost of parts, boards, and tools, and ease of use may make 8 bit attractive. I would suggest AVR simply because it is supported by the free avr-gcc toolchain. Some 8 bit targets are supported by SDCC, another open source C compiler. I believe Zilog make their Z8 compiler available for free, but you may need to pay for the debug hardware (although this is relatively inexpensive). Many commercial tool vendors provide code-size-limited versions of their tools for evaluation and non-commercial use, but beware most debuggers require specialist hardware which may be expensive, although in some cases you can build it yourself if you only need basic functionality and low speeds.
Whatever you do do take a look at www.embedded.com. If you choose ARM, I have used WinARM successfully on commercial projects, although it is not built-for-comfort! A good list of ARM resources is available here. For AVR definitely check out www.avrfreaks.net
I would only recommend Microchip PIC parts (at least the low-end ones) for highly cost sensitive projects where the peripheral mix is a good fit to the application; not for learning embedded systems. PIC is more of a branding than an architecture, the various ranges PIC12, 16, 18, 24, and PIC32 are very different from each other, so learning on one does not necessarily stand you in good stead for using another - often you even need to purchase new tools! That said, the dsPIC which is based on the PIC24 architecture may be a good choice if you wanted to get some simple DSP experience at the same time.
In all cases check out compiler availability (especially if C++ support is a requirement) and cost, and debugger hardware requirements, since often these will be the most expensive parts of your dev-kit, the boards and parts are often the least expensive part.
This is kind of a hard question to answer as your ideal answer very much depends on what it is your interested in learning.
If your goal is just to dive a little deeper into the inner workings of computing systems i would almost recommend you forgo the embedded route and pick up a book on writing a linux kernel module. Write something simple that reads a temperature sensor off the SMbus or something like that.
If your looking at getting into high level (phones, etc) embedded application development, download the Android SDK, you can code in java under eclipse and even has a nice emulator.
If your looking at getting into the "real" microcontroller space and really taking a look at low level system programming, i would recommend you start on a very simple architecture such as an AVR or PIC, something without an MMU.
Diving into the middle ground, for example an ARM with MMU and some sort of OS be it linux or otherwise is going to be a bit of a shock as without a background is both system programming and hardware interfacing i think the transition will be very rough if you plan to do much other than write very simple apps, counting button presses or similar.
Texas Instruments has released a very interesting development kit at a very low price: The eZ430-Chronos Development Tool contains an MSP430 with display and various sensors in a sports watch, including a usb debug programmer and a usb radio access point for 50$
There is also a wiki containing lots and lots of information.
I have already created a stackexchange proposal for the eZ430-Chronos Kit.
No it doesn't matter if you want to learn how to program an embedded device. But you need to know the flow of where to start and where to go next. Cause there are many micro-controllers out there and you don't know which one to choose. So better have a road-map before starting.
In my view you should start with - Any AVR board (atmega 328P- arduino boards or AVR boards)
then you should go to ARM micro-controller - first do ARM CORTEX TDMI
then ARM cortex M3 board.Thus this will give you an overall view after which you can choose any board depending on what kind of project you are working and what are your requirements.
Whatever you do, make sure you get a good development environment. I am not a fan of Microchip's development tools even though I like their microcontrollers (I have been burned too many times by MPLAB + ICD, too much hassle and dysfunction). TI's 2800 series DSPs are pretty good and have an Eclipse-based C++ development environment which you can get into for < US$100 (get one of the "controlCARD"-based experimenter's kits like the one for the 28335) -- the debugger communications link is really solid; the IDE is good although I do occasionally crash it.
Somewhere out there are ICs and boards that are better; I'm not that familiar with the embedded microcontroller landscape, but I don't have much patience for poor IDEs with yet another software tool chain that I have to figure out how to get around all the bugs.
Some recommend the ARM. I'd recommend it, not as a first platform to learn, but as a second platform. ARM is a bit complex as a platform to learn the low-level details of embedded, because its start-up code and initialisation requirements are more complicated than many other micros. But ARM is a big player in the embedded market, so well worth learning. So I'd recommend it as a second platform to learn.
The Atmel AVR would be good for learning many embedded essentials, for 3 main reasons:
Architecture is reasonably straight-forward
Good development kits available, with tutorials
Fan forum with many resources
Other micros with development kits could also be good—such as MSP430—although they may not have such a fan forum. Using a development kit is a good way to go, since they are geared towards quickly getting up-and-running with the micro, and foster effective learning. They are likely to have tutorials oriented towards quickly getting started.
Well, I suppose the development kits and their tutorials are likely to gloss over such things as bootloaders and start-up code, in favour of getting your code to blink the LED as soon as possible. But that could be a good way to get started, and you can explore the chain of events from "power-on" to "code running" at your pace.
I'm no fan of the PICs, at least the PIC16s, due to their architecture. It's not very C-friendly. And memory banks are painful.
It does matter, you need to gradually acquire experience starting with simpler systems. Note that by simpler I dont mean less powerful, I mean ease of use, ease of setup etc. In that vein I would recommend the following (I have no vested interest in a any of the products, I just found them the best):
I've started using one of these (MBED developer board). The big selling points for me were that I could code in C or C++, straightforward connection vis USB and a slick on-line development environment (no local tool installation required at all!).
http://mbed.org/
Five minutes afer opening box I had a sample blinky program (the 'hello world' of the emedded world) running the following:
#include "mbed.h"
DigitalOut myled(LED1);
int main()
{
while(1)
{
myled = 1;
wait(0.2);
myled = 0;
wait(0.2);
}
}
That's it! Above is the complete program!
It's based on ARM Cortex M3, fast and plenty of memory for embedded projects (100mhz, 256k flash & 32k ram). The online dev tools have a very good library and plenty of examples and theres a very active forum. Plenty of help on connecting devices to MBED etc
Even though I have plenty of experience with embedded systems (ARM 7/9, Renases M8/16/32, Coldfire, Zilog, PIC etc) I still found this a refreshingly easy system to get to grips with while having serious capability.
After initially playing with it on a basic breadboard I bought a base board from these guys: http://www.embeddedartists.com/products/lpcxpresso/xpr_base.php?PHPSESSID=lj20urpsh9isa0c8ddcfmmn207. This has a pile of I/O devices (including a miniture OLED and a 3axis accelerometer). From the same site I also bought one of the LCPExpresso processor boards which is cheap, less power/memory than the MBED but perfect for smaller jobs (still hammers the crap out of PIC/Atmega processors). The base board supports both the LCPExpresso and the MBED. Purchasing the LCPExpress processor board also got me me an attached JTAG debugger and an offline dev envoronment (Code Red's GCC/Eclipse based dev kit). This is much more complex than the online MBED dev environment but is a logical progression after you've gained expeience with the MBED.
With reference to my original point noite that the MBED controller is much more capable than the the LPCExpresso controller BUT is much simpler to use and learn with.
I use microchips PIC's, its what I started on, I mainly got going on it due to the 123 microcontroller projects for the evil genius book. I took a Microprocessors class at school for my degree and learned a bit about interrupts and timing and things, this helped a ton with my microcontrollers. I suppose some of the other programmers etc may be better/easier, but for $36 for the PicKit1, I'm too cheap to go buy another one...and frankly without using them I don't know if they are easier/better, I like mine and recommend it every chance I get, and it took me forever to really actually look at it, but I was able to program another chip off board with ICSP finally. I don't know what other programmers do it, but for me that's the nicest thing 5 wire interface and you're programmed. Can't beat that with a stick...
I've only used one of those.
The Freescale is a fine chip. I've used HC-something chips for years for little projects. The only caveat is that I wouldn't touch CodeWarrier embedded with a 10 foot pole. You can find little free C compilers and assemblers (I don't remember the name of the last one I used) that do the job just fine. Codewarrior was big and confusing and regardless of how much I knew about the chip architecture and C programming always seemed to only make things harder. If you've used Codewarrior on the Mac back in the old days and think CW is pretty neat, well, it's not at all like that. CW embedded looks vaguely similar, but it works very differently, and not very well.
A command-line compiler is generally fine. Professionals who can shell out the big bucks get expensive development environments, and I'm sure they make things better, but without that it's still far better than writing assembly code for a desktop PC in 1990, and somehow we managed to do that just fine. :-)
You might consider a RoBoard. Now, this board may not be what you are looking for in terms of a microcontroller, but it does have the advantage of being able to run Windows or DOS and thus you could use the Microsoft .NET or even C/C++ development tools to fiddle around with things like servos or sensors or even, what the heck, build a robot! It's actually kinda fun.
There's also the Axon II, which has the ATmega640 processor.
Either way, both boards should help you achieve your goal.
Sorry for the robotics focus, just something I'm interested in and thought it may help you too.
I use PICs, but would consider Arduino if I chose today. But from your goals:
how IO ports work
memory limitations/requirements
interrupt service routines
I wonder if you best bet is just to hack in the Linux kernel?
BBC Micro Bit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Bit
This cheap little board (~20 pounds) was crated by ARM Holdings as an educational device, and 1M units were given out for free to UK students.
It contains an ARM Cortex-M0, the smallest ARM core of all.
I recommend it as a first micro-controller board due to its wide availability, low cost, simplicity, and the fact that it introduces you to the ARM architecture, which has many more advanced boards also available for more serious applications.
I am an embedded SW Engineer, with less than 3 yrs of experience. I aim to "sharpen the saw" continuously. I was wondering if there was anything specific to low level programming that C/C++ coders should be proficient with.
What comes to my mind is familiarity with the hardware's architecture and instruction set. Knowing how to fiddle with bits is also important, resource management and performance have been part of my job, is there anything else?
EDIT: I work with an in-house customized RTOS, not embedded Linux.
I see a lot of high-level operating system answers here, but you specifically said low-level.
Some scattered thoughts:
Design for test. As you work through a problem only change one thing at a time per test.
You need to understand busses and interfaces, spi, i2c, usb, ethernet, etc. Number one interface, today, yesterday, and tomorrow, the uart, serial.
The steps involved in programming a flash.
Tricks to avoid making the product easily brickable.
Bootloaders in general.
Bit-banging above said interfaces on various families of parts (different chip
vendors have different ideas about io pins, pull ups, direction
controls, etc).
Board and chip bring up, you certainly never want to
boot a many tens of thousands of lines of code program on the first
power up (think led on, led off).
How to debug a product without using too much test equipment (logical analyzers and scopes), at the same time you have to learn to use a scope for debugging, you are far
more valuable if you don't HAVE TO have a tech or engineer in the lab
with you.
How would you reprogram the unit in the field? What would
you do to minimize human error when allowing the user to field
upgrade the unit? Remember field downgrades as well.
What would you do to discourage hacking (binaries, etc).
Efficient use of the flash/rom (don't wear out one bank or section, spread the wear around, or see if the flash is doing it for you).
How and when to use a watchdog timer.
State machines, very useful with bytestreams (serial and ethernet), design packet structures that stream well and are tailored to a state machine, and that have a header and checksum or other structure that insures you do not interpret partial packets or
random data as a good packet.
Specific concepts like,
Endianness (this link is to an old but good linuxjournal article)
Effective use of multithreading architectures (the Embedded site is good in general)
Debugging embedded and multithreaded systems
Understand, Learn and Follow good programming techniques (the link is very old and the point very generic and subjective, but think about it)
Other things (this IBM page on embedded linux sums up most of the other points I want to make)
One more thing -- never underestimate testing! or, planning test cases!!
Use the reference links I give as concepts,
please followup further for deeper knowledge.
I'd study the electronics of the actual chips. Learn how they work internally (such as architecture), interface with peripherals, electrical and timing characteristics, etc.
Basically, read the data sheet start to finish a few times and dig into anything you've not seen/used before.
By the way, what chips do you work with?
Similar to what Brian said, learn how to create unit tests and automated builds.
These skills are are good for all levels of software engineers to be proficient in. They will help improve the quality of your code while also making it easier to refactor and improve the code base.
If you haven't yet I think every Software Engineer should read The Pragmatic Programmer and Code Complete. I know these are not specific to low level programming, but have a large wealth of knowledge in them that applies to all sub disciplines.
Having great familiarity with pointers, the checks these languages don't do much (like buffer overflow and stuff like that), digital electronics. Operational systems internals might also help.
Get to know how stuff is represented internally, specially ready-made data structures (supposing you won't build your own one).
Above all, practice a lot. Doing it brings much more to you than just reading about it ;)
bit operations
processor architectures (caches, etc)
wcet analysis
scheduling
Edit: What I forgot to mention is model based development.
Today, the control algorithms are often implemented as some kind of automaton from which C code is generated afterwards.
Commercial available tools are for example MATLAB/Simulink, ASCET or SCADE.
Get yourself a copy of the MISRA-C book. It was originally written by members of the automotive industry, and attempts to make software written in C more robust by applying a number (quite a large number!) of rules and guidelines.
Then, buy PC-Lint (or another static analysis tool) to check your code for MISRA and other rules.
These are particularly relevant to low-level and embedded C, as between them they deal with the causes of a lot of bugs in such software, such as issues relating to pointers, memory leaks, integer promotion (there's a whole chapter on that in the MISRA book), endianness, and undefined behaviour.
Good question. Some that haven't been mentioned...
Learn your various options for achieving low-level multitasking. From basic round-robin (non-preemptive) schedulers, with timing ticks from a hardware timer, up to a preemptive RTOS. Learn why you might need an RTOS, and why you might not. If you use an RTOS, learn that beginners with a PC background probably tend to want to create too many tasks.
Getting visibility into the internals for debugging can be a challenge. There's no screen typically, so no throwing in "printf" calls wherever you want. An emulator or JTAG interface is ideal--you can set breakpoints and step through your program (as long as halting the micro doesn't make hardware go crazy, like swinging a robot arm around at full speed!). If emulator/JTAG is not available, learn how to use a spare serial port (or maybe even bit-bash a pin to make a serial port) for a debug channel, with some simple memory peek/poke commands.
As a kind of opposite to this question: "Is low-level embedded systems programming hard for software developers" I would like to ask for advice on moving from the low level embedded systems to programming for more advanced systems with OS, especially embedded Linux.
I have mostly worked with small microcontroller hardware and software, but now doing software only. My education also consists of hardware and embedded things mainly. I haven't had many programming courses and don't know much about software design or OO coding.
Now I have a big project in my hands that is going to be done in embedded Linux. I have major problems with designing things and keeping things manageable because I haven't really needed to do that before. Also making use of multitasking and blocking calls instead of running "parallel" task from main function is like another world.
What kind of experiences do you have on moving from low-level programming to bigger systems with OS (Linux)? What was hard and how did you solve it? What kind of mindset is needed?
Would it be worthwhile to learn C++ from zero or continue using plain C?
The main problems with using the Linux kernel to replace microcontroller systems is driving the devices you are interfacing with. For this you may have to write drivers. I would say stick with C as the language because you are going to want to keep the user-space as clean as possible. Look into the uclibc library for a leaner C standard library.
http://www.uclibc.org/
You may also find busybox useful. This provides many userspace utilities as a single binary.
http://www.busybox.net/
Then it is simply a matter of booting from some storage to a live system and running some controlling logic through init that interfaces with your hardware. If need be you can access the live system and run the busybox utilities. Really, the only difference is that the userspace is much leaner than in a normal distribution and you will be working 'closer' to the kernel in terms of objectives.
Also look into realtime linux.
http://www.realtimelinuxfoundation.org/
If you need some formal promise of task completion. I suspect the hardest bit will be booting/persistent storage and interfacing with your hardware if it is exotic. If you are unfamiliar with Linux booting then
http://www.cromwell-intl.com/unix/linux-boot.html
Might help.
In short, if you have not developed at a deep level for Linux, built your own distro, or have kernel experience then you might find the programming hard-going.
http://www.linuxdevices.com/ Might also help
Good Luck
In order to work with Unix/Linux you should get into the Unix philosophy: http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html
I consider the whole book a quite interesting read: http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/index.html
Here you can find a free Linux distro for embedded targets plus bootloader to get you started: http://www.denx.de/wiki/DULG/WebHome
I was in a very similar predicament not too long ago. I bought and read Embedded Linux Primer and it was a very helpful way to make the mental-transition to a high level OS (from a microcontroller perspective).
If you have the "time to 'take your time'," you could obviously make the transition. But if you need to get up to speed quickly, you may want to strongly consider getting a technical mentor to help guide you.
You also may find it useful to work your way into Linux by starting out with ucLinux. It's basically Linux on a microcontroller. You could get a feel for the kernel without the virtual memory aspect of it as transition. See if ucLinux supports a microcontroller that you are already familiar with and see how the kernel interacts with that architecture.
I agree that the Embedded Linux Primer book is great for getting your brain wrapped around embedded Linux. You're better off sticking with C for now. C++ can wait, and it's more useful for applications, not driver code.
When you're comfortable with how ucLinux operates, then you could start out with a normal Linux kernel on a microprocessor architecture such as ARM that has an MMU and virtual memory.
Just my two cents!