Is it possible to program a wireless adapter attached to a computer?
I need to modify how they work, not just using them to perform a task such as scanning or connecting.
I have already tried the Native Wifi API, but that library is too high level. I cannot modify how exactly the wireless adapter works.
Any solution in any programming language in any operating system is very welcomed. (Sounds so desperate lol)
You need an open-source operating system then. Hardware varies in how programmable it is, but for example, Atheros wireless cards do not have an on-board processor, and therefore they do the absolute minimum of the 802.11 protocol in hardware, leaving everything else to the device driver. More info in these places: http://linuxwireless.org/ http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-testing.git;a=summary;
If you really need to go further that what commodity hardware can do, look in to GNU Radio and the USRP/USRP2: http://gnuradio.org/redmine/wiki/gnuradio
And yes, you do have to be careful about the legal implications of this stuff, but then if you don't turn off the regulatory framework, there is software to help with that.
Generally speaking, the manufacturer will attempt to prevent you from doing this. Since what you're working with is really a radio transceiver, its operation is regulated. In the US, for example, such things fall under the purview of the FCC. Depending on the country, changing how it operates (and then operating it) is likely to be illegal.
If you have an atheros chipset on your WLAN card then load up linux and install ath5k/ath9k or madwifi and you can do some interesting things with the driver.
Related
I am a physicist, and I had a revelation a few weeks ago about how I might be able to use my personal computer to get much finer control over laboratory experiments than is typically the case. Before I ran off to try this out though, I wanted to check the feasibility with people who have more expertise than myself in such matters.
The idea is to use the i/o ports---VGA, ethernet, speaker jacks, etc.---on the computer to talk directly to the sensors and actuators in the experimental setup. E.g. cut open one side of an ethernet cable (with the other end attached to the computer) and send each line to a different device. I knew a postdoc who did something very similar using a BeagleBone. He wrote some assembly code that let him sync everything with the internal clock and used the GPIO pins to effectively give him a hybrid signal generator/scope that was completely programmable. It seems like the same thing should be possible with a laptop, and this would have the additional benefit that you can do data analysis from the same device.
The main potential difficulty that I foresee is that the hardware on a BeagleBone is designed with this sort of i/o in mind, whereas I expect the hardware on a laptop will probably be harder to control directly. I know for example (from some preliminary investigation, http://ask.metafilter.com/125812/Simple-USB-control-how-to-blink-an-LED-via-code) that USB ports will be difficult to access this way, and VGA is (according to VGA 15 pin port data read and write using Matlab) impossible. I haven't found anything about using other ports like ethernet or speaker jacks, though.
So the main question is: will this idea be feasible (without investing many months for each new variation of the hardware), and if so what type of i/o (ethernet, speaker jacks, etc.) is likely to be the best bet?
Auxiliary questions are:
Where can I find material to learn how I might go about executing this plan? I'm not even sure what keywords to plug in on Google.
Will the ease with which I can do this depend strongly on operating system or hardware brand?
The only cable I can think of for a pc that can get close to this would be a parallel printer cable which is pretty much gone away. It's a 25 wire cable that data is spread across so that it can send more data at the same time. I'm just not sure if you can target a specific line or if it's more of a left to right fill as data is sent.
To use one on a laptop today would definitely be difficult. You won't find any laptops with parallel ports. There are usb to parallel cables and serial to parallel cables but I would guess that the only control you would have it to the usb or serial interface and not the parallel.
As for Ethernet, you have 4 twisted pair with only 2 pair in use and 2 pair that are extra.
There's some hardware that available called Zwave that you might want to look into. Zwave will allow you to build a network of devices that communicate in a mesh. I'm not sure what kind of response time you need.
I actually just thought of something that might be a good solution. Check out security equipment. There's a lot of equipment available for pc's that monitor doors, windows, sensors, etc. That industry might what your looking for.
I think the easiest way would be to use the USB port as a Human Interface Device (HID) and using a custom built PIC program and a PIC that includes the USB functionality to encode the data to be sent to the computer and in that way be able to program it independently from the OS due to the fact that all mayor OS have the HID USB functionality.
Anyways if you used your MIC/VGA/HDMI whatever other port you still need a device to encode the data or transmit it, and another program inside the computer to decode that data being sent.
And remember that different hardware has different software (drivers) that might decode the raw data in other odd ways rendering your IO hardware dependent.
Hope this helps, but thats why the USB was invented in the first place to make it hardware and os independent.
I am wondering if anyone have any information on development boards where you can utilize ARM TrustZone? I have the BeagleBoard XM which uses TI's OMAP3530 with Cortex-A8 processor that supports trust zone, however TI confirmed that they have disabled the function on the board as it is a general purpose device.
Further research got me to the panda board which uses OMAP4430 but there is no response from TI and very little information on the internet. How do you learn how to use trust zone?
Best Regards
Mr Gigu
As far as I know, all the OMAP processors you can get off-the-shelf are GP devices, i.e. with the TrustZone functions disabled (or else they're processors in production devices such as off-the-shelf mobile phones, for which you don't get the keys). The situation is similar with other SoC manufacturers. Apart from ARM's limited publications (which only cover the common ARM features anyway, and not the chip-specific features such as memory management details, booting and loading trusted code), all documentation about TrustZone features comes under NDA. This is a pity because it precludes independent analysis of these security features or leverage by open-source software.
I'm afraid that if you want to program for a TrustZone device, you'll have to contact a representative of TI or one of their competitors, convince them that your application is something they want to happen, and obtain HS devices, the keys to sign code for your development boards, and the documentation without which you'll have a very hard time.
As of today OP-TEE runs on quite a few devices (see OP-TEE platforms supported) and several of them are development boards readily available. To name a few HiKey, Raspberry Pi3, ARM Juno Board, Freescale i.MX6 variants etc. Either you could pick up one of those or you could simply try it all using QEMU which is very well supported in OP-TEE.
You can get 45 days trial version for ARM fastmodels. RaspberyPI is supposed to support TrustZone too. www.openvirtualization.org has full open source implementation of ARM TrustZone. ARM is moving away from its proprietary TrustZone APIs to globalplatform API. GlobalPlatform also defines the APIs for Inter process communication etc.
There are a few select boards at this time that do allow development with TrustZone. As far as general purpose board, the FriendlyARM board is a good start (http://www.friendlyarm.net). Also, any board with a Cortex A15 processor must have TrustZone available due to the fact that the virtualization extensions can only be utilized from the Normal world. There may still be a question of whether or not the manufacturer has their own code running in the Secure world, but you can always try. The Arndale is a good development board, but unfortunately Samsung already has code running in the Secure world, so by the time you get access, you're running in the Normal world. So if you need Secure world access, look for non-Samsung, Cortex A15 processors. That'd be your best bet.
It's also worth noting the TI did not technically disable TrustZone. Instead, the bootrom code transitions the processor into the Normal world prior to switching execution to U-boot. So it's actually using TrustZone to move to the Normal world, but then doesn't provide a mechanism for moving back to the Secure world. To prove this, just try to read the SCR and you'll get an undefined exception, which is what will typically happen from the Normal world. However, if you perform a SMC call, it will execute just as expected (i.e., it switches to the Secure world, but then just switches right back to the Normal world), so it looks like nothing happened.
regarding openvirtualization, it can be ported to arm development board like the samsung exynos 4XXX.
you will have access to all source code including the secure os if you use openvirtualization.
but if you just want to develop programs that use the trustzone, I wonder if it is necessary. maybe there are standard driver or api that allow you to do it without worrying about compiling your own secure os?
the best thing you can do is contact parties like Gemalto and the people that brought Mobicore. Note that they will indeed ask you to sign an NDA.
Secondly, you can buy the ARM DS5 development suite. This comes with a lot of documentation including some on trustzone.
You should really take a look at the USB armory from Inverse Path: http://www.inversepath.com/usbarmory.html
It's built on open hardware and open source with full access to Trustzone (you can blow in die fuse to enable secure boot): https://github.com/inversepath/usbarmory
They successfully ran Genode within TZ and Linux in the normal world.
I am new to the locating hardware side of embedded programming and so after being completely overwhelmed with all the choices out there (pc104, custom boards, a zillion option for each board, volume discounts, devel kits, ahhh!!) I am asking here for some direction.
Basically, I must find a new motherboard and (most likely) re-implement the program logic. Rewriting this in C/C++/Java/C#/Pascal/BASIC is not a problem for me. so my real problem is finding the hardware. This motherboard will have several other devices attached to it. Here is a summary of what I need to do:
Required:
2 RS232 serial ports (one used all the time for primary UI, the second one not continuous)
1 modem (9600+ baud ok) [Modem will be in simultaneous use with only one of the serial port devices, so interrupt sharing with one serial port is OK, but not both]
Minimum permanent/long term storage: Whatever O/S requires + 1 MB (executable) + 512 KB (Data files)
RAM: Minimal, whatever the O/S requires plus maybe 1MB for executable.
Nice to have:
USB port(s)
Ethernet network port
Wireless network
Implementation languages (any O/S I will adapt to):
First choice Java/C# (Mono ok)
Second choice is C/Pascal
Third is BASIC
Ok, given all this, I am having a lot of trouble finding hardware that will support this that is low in cost. Every manufacturer site I visit has a lot of options, and it's difficult to see if their offering will even satisfy my must-have requirements (for example they sometimes list 3 "serial ports", but it appears that only one of the three is RS232, for example, and don't mention what the other two are). The #1 constraint is cost, #2 is size.
Can anyone help me with this? This little task has left me thinking I should have gone for EE and not CS :-).
EDIT: A bit of background: This is a system currently in production, but the original programmer passed away, and the current hardware manufacturer cannot find hardware to run the (currently) DOS system, so I need to reimplement this in a modern platform. I can only change the programming and the motherboard hardware.
I suggest buying a cheap Atom Mini-ITX board, some of which come with multi - 4+ RS232 ports.
But with Serial->USB converters, this isn't really an issue. Just get an Atom. And if you have code, port your software to Linux.
Here is a link to a Jetway Mini-Itx board, and a link to a 4 port RS232 expansion module for it. ~$170 total, some extra for memory, a disk, and a case and PSU. $250-$300 total.
Now here is an Intel Atom Board at $69 to which you could add flash storage instead of drives, and USB-serial converters for any data collection you need to do.
PC104 has a lot of value in maximizing the space used in 19" or 23" rackmount configurations - if you're not in that space, PC104 is a waste of your time and money, IMHO.
The BeagleBoard should have everything you need for $200 or so - it can run Linux so use whatever programming language you like.
A 'modern' system will run DOS so long as it is x86, I suggest that you look at an industrial PC board from a supplier such as Advantech, your existing system may well run unchanged if it adheres to PC/DOS/BIOS standards.
That said if your original system runs on DOS, the chances are that you do not need the horsepower of a modern x86 system, and can save money by using a microcontroller board using something fairly ubiquitous such as an ARM. Also if DOS was the OS, then you most likely do not need an OS at all, and could develop the system "bare-metal". The resources necessary just to support Linux are probably far greater than your existing application and OS together, and for little or no benefit unless you intend on extending the capability of the system considerably.
There are a number of resources available (free and commercial) for implementing a file system and USB on a bare-metal system or a system using a simple real-time kernel such as FreeRTOS or eCOS which have far smaller footprints than Linux.
The Windows embedded site ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/default.mspx )
has a lot of resources and links to hardware partners, distributors and development kits. There's even a "Spark" incubation project ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/community/spark/default.mspx )
What's also really nice about using windows ce is that it now supports Silverlight as a development environment.
I've used the jetway boards / daughter cards that Chris mentioned with success for various projects from embedded control, my home router, my HTPC front end.
You didn't mention what the actual application was but if you need something more industrial due to temperature or moisture constraints i've found http://www.logicsupply.com/ to be a good resource for mini-itx systems that can take a beating.
A tip for these board is that given your minimal storage requirements, don't use a hard drive. Use an IDE adapter for a compact flash card as the system storage or an SD card. No moving parts is usually a big plus in these applications. They also usually offer models with DC power input so you can use a laptop like or wall wart external supply which minimizes its final size.
This http://www.fit-pc.com/web/ is another option in the very small atom PC market, you'd likely need to use some USB converters to get to your desired connectivity.
The beagle board Paul mentioned is also a good choice, there are daughter cards for that as well that will add whatever ports you need and it has an on board SD card reader for whatever storage you need. This is also a substantially lower power option vs the atom systems.
There are a ton of single board computers that would fit your needs. When searching you'll normally find that they don't keep many interface connectors on the processor board itself but rather you need to look at the stackable daughter cards they offer which would provide whatever connections you need (RS-232, etc.). This is often why you see just "serial port" in the description as the final physical layer for the serial port will be defined on the daughter card.
There are a ton of arm based development boards you could also use, to many to list, these are similar to the beagle board. Googling for "System on module" is a good way to find many options. These again are usually a module with the processor/ram/flash on 1 card and then offer various carrier boards which the module plugs into which will provide the various forms of connectivity you need.
In terms of development, the atom boards will likely be the easiest if your more familiar with x86 development. ARM is strongly supported under linux though so there is little difficulty in getting these up and running.
Personally i would avoid windows for a headless design like your discussing, i rarely see a windows based embedded device that isn't just bad.
Take at look at one of the boards in the Arduino line, in particular the Arduino Mega. Very flexible boards at a low cost, and the Mega has enough I/O ports to do what you need it to do. There is no on-chip modem, but you can connect to something like a Phillips PCD3312C over the I2C connector or you can find an Arduino add-on board (called a "shield") to give you modem functionality (or Bluetooth, ethernet, etc etc). Also, these are very easy to connect to an external memory device (like a flash drive or an SD card) so you should have plenty of storage space.
For something more PC-like, look for an existing device that is powered by a VIA EPIA board. There are lot of devices out there that use these (set-top boxes, edge routers, network security devices etc) that you can buy and re-program. For example, I found a device that was supposed to be a network security device. It came with the EPIA board, RAM, a hard drive, and a power supply. All I had to do was format the hard drive, install Linux (Debian had all necessary drivers already included), and I had a complete mini-computer ready to go. It only cost me around $45 too (bought brand new, unopened on ebay).
Update: The particular device I found was an EdgeSecure i10 from Ingrian Networks.
I had a look at this and this but no one sounded particularly sure of their ideas and I'm kind of after a different thing anyway. I want to hook my usb power cables (red and black) up to my phone so I don't have to use a battery (the battery is dead anyway and this is just an experiment). The problem is that USB standards ensure that a minimum of 4.35V is supplied, when I only want 3.7V. Does anyone know for sure that you can or cannot regulate power output programmatically? Some other queries I have are: What kind of power does the sleep mode provide? And what would I need to code something in to play with this, C++?
No, you won't find a computer that allows you to set this voltage in software. It would break the USB specification.
You can get 150mA by default, and 500mA if your USB device negotiates it with the computer (requiring a little bit of logic in the device). Multiply by 5V to get the provided power.
A bit more info on the answer from Pascal:
The normal operation (Non-Configured mode) is 100mA
In theory, the operating system should check the MaxPower value of the device's configuration descriptor to decide if to allow it to draw more than 100mA.
In practice, PCs do not do it (and have no way to control it). So you can try taking 500mA.
(Of course connecting a bus powered hub and linking more then one 500mA device, should, not work.)
If the device is not actively used, the OS may (and should) suspend it. When suspended the power is limited to 1-0.5mA (Again, in theory, since it can not be controlled by software).
I have been tasked to write a device driver for an embedded device which will communicate with the micro controller via the SPI interface. Eventually, the USB interface will be used to download updated code externally and used during the verification phase.
My question is, does anyone know of a good reference design or documentation or online tutorial which covers the implementation/design of the USB protocol stack/device driver within an embedded system? I am just starting out and reading through the 650 page USB v2.0 spec is a little daunting at the moment.
Just as a FYI, the micro controller that I am using is a Freescale 9S12.
Mark
Based upon goldenmean's (-AD) comments I wanted to add the following info:
1) The embedded device uses a custom executive and makes no use of a COTS or RTOS.
2) The device will use interrupts to indicate data is ready to be retrieved from the device.
3) I have read through some of the docs regarding Linux, but since I am not at all familiar with Linux it isn't very helpful at the moment (though I am hoping it will be very quickly).
4) The design approach, for now at least, it to write a device driver for the USB device then a USB protocol layer (I/O) would reside on top of the device driver to interpret the data. I would assume this would be the best approach, though I could be wrong.
Edit - A year later
I just wanted to share a few items before they vanish from my mind in case I never work on a USB device again. I ran into a few obstacles when developing code and getting it up and running for the first.
The first problem I ran into was that when the USB device was connected to the Host (Windows in my case) was the host issues a Reset request. The USB device would reset and clear the interrupt enable flags. I didn't read the literature enough to know this was happening, thus I was never receiving the Set-Up Request Interrupt. It took me quite a while to figure this out.
The second problem I ran into was not handling the Set-Up Request for Set_Configuration properly. I was handling it, but I was not processing the request correctly in that the USB device was not sending an ACK when this Set-Up Request came in. I eventually found this out by using a hardware USB protocol analyzer.
There were other issues that I ran into, but these were the two biggest ones that took me quite a while to figure out. The other issue I had to worry about is big-endian and little-endian, Freescale 9S12 vs USB data format (Intel), respectively.
I ended up building the USB device driver similar to UART device drivers I had done in the past. I have posted the code to this at the following URL.
http://lordhog.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/usb-drive
I tend to use structures a lot, so people may not like them since they are not as portal as using #defines (e.g., MAX3420_SETUP_DATA_AVAIL_INT_REQR 0x20), but I like them since it makes the code more readable for me. If anyone has questions regarding it please feel free to e-mail and I can try to give some insight to it. The book "USB Complete: The Developer's Guide" was helpful, so long as you knew what areas to concentrate on. This was a simple application and only used low-speed USB.
While writing a device driver for any interface (USB, Parallel port, etc...) the code needed to be developed would depend upon whether there is any Operating System(OS), RTOS running on that Processor/Micro controller.
e.g. if thats going to run say WinCE - It will have its own Driver development Kit , and steps to be followed in the device driver development. Same for any other OS like Linux, symbian.
If its going to be a plain firmware code(No OS) which is going to control the processor/microcontroller, then it's a different situation altogether.
So based on either of the above situation u are in, one needs to read & understand:-
1.) The Hardware Specification of the processor/micro controller development board - Register files, ports, memory layout, etc.
2.) USB spec
3.) Couple of pointers i found quickly. Google shud be ur friend!
http://www.lrr.in.tum.de/Par/arch/usb/usbdoc/ - Linux USB device driver
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/wce/support/usbce.mspx
-AD
I've used an earlier edition of USB Complete by Jan Axelson. Indeed very complete.
From the editorial review:
Now in its fourth edition, this developer's guide to the Universal Serial Bus (USB) interface covers all aspects of project development, such as hardware design, device firmware, and host application software.
I'm curious, why did you pick the 9S12? I used it at a previous job, and was not pleased.
It had lousy gcc support so we used Metrowerks
which may have been okay for C, but often generated buggy C++
had a lousy IDE with binary project files!
The 9s12 was also slow, a lot of instructions executed in 5 cycles.
Not very power efficient, either.
no barrel shifter, made operations that are common in embedded code slow
not that cheap.
About the only thing I dislike more is an 8051. I'm using an ARM CortexM3 at my current job, it's better than a 9S12 in every way (faster clock, more work done per clock, less power consumption, cheaper, good gcc support, 32-bit vs. 16-bit).
I don't know which hardware you're planning to use but assuming that's flexible, STMicro offers a line of microcontrollers with USB/SPI support and a library of C-code that can be used with their parts. -- I've used their ARM7 series micros for years with great success.
Here is an excellent site maintained by Jonathan Valvano, a professor at the University of Texas. He teaches four courses over there (three undergraduate, one graduate), all are about using a 9S12 microcontroller. His site contains all the lecture notes, lab manuals, and more importantly, starter files, that he uses for all his classes.
The website looks like it's from the 90's, but just dig around a bit and you should find everything you need.
users.ece.utexas.edu/~valvano/
Consider AVR for your next MCU project because of it's wonderful LUFA and V-USB libraries.
I'm working on a project using the Atmel V71. The processor is very powerful and among lot's of high end connectivity offered on chip is a USB engine that will do device or host modes for 480 Mhz or 48Mhz (not USB 3.0). The tools are free and come with a number of host and device USB example projects with all the USB stack code right there. It supports 10 end points and all the transfers are done via DMA so you have most of the processor horsepower available for other tasks. The Atmel USB stack works without needing an RTOS