If I understand the parallel port right, sending data from (D0 to D7) simultaneous, but that it can control the sticks individually?
example:
D0 = Input
D1 = Input
D2 = Output
...
...
...
D7 = Input
would it work?
what I want to do is to both send and receive data simultaneously.
Data wires (D0-D7) are being read or set simultaneously. For various tecniques for bidirectional I/O read the attached articles:
Standard parallel port: http://www.beyondlogic.org/spp/parallel.htm
EPP: http://www.beyondlogic.org/epp/epp.htm
ECP: http://www.beyondlogic.org/ecp/ecp.htm
This site is a good source for programming the parallel port.
The basic idea is that you need a DLL, add-on or library that allows you to access the I/O Ports of the PC. For Windows XP on up you need a specific driver that will allow you do this as the OS doesn't offer access out of the box.
The Parallel port will generally reside at one of three address 278,378, 3BC. This port. have the bytes you are reading or writing.
The (base)+1 port allows access to the status bytes. IE. 279,379, 3BD
The (base)+2 port allows access to the control bytes. IE. 27A,37A,3BE
The parallel port documentation will tell not only how to implement the common modes (like bi-directional) but how to control the port at the byte level to implement your own custom.
Back in the day there was only the standard mode available. You pump out your bytes at the (base) port. Some application, like mine, manipulated individual bits of that ports as form of cheap Digital I/O Controller. We did use the status and control bytes as additional inputs and outputs. There were commands you can send to the Parallel Port chip configure the modes precisely.
Today there are are hundreds of sites with example of using the Parallel Port to solve all kinds of problems. I would be surprised that one of doesn't have something you can use for you specific application.
Again the book I recommend starting with is Parallel Port complete. It tells just about everything you need to start with. If your application is too esoteric for that book it will give a springboard from which you can find the exact setup you need.
Of course by sending a number that has just the required bit set (2n) you'd get the expected result.
I'm not sure about bidirectional access though. I guess it's achieved by using control pins along with the data pins but that's just a guess.
Parallel ports doing EPP or ECP only allow D0-D7 to be all input or all output. Trying to do otherwise may fry your hardware.
See http://www.nor-tech.com/solutions/dox/ieee1284_parallel_ports.pdf, page 6.
However, parallel ports have several control lines that may be useful if you only need a small amount of input/output in the "other" direction.
I believe its bit 5 in the port's control register (base address + 2) that switches direction. (no hardware line attached)
Related
I'm controlling a couple of i2c slaves (PCA9505) using the I2C module of National Instruments LabVIEW. I need to improve the project so I can add new slaves to the bus without manually adjusting the address of the slaves. (pins A0 A1 A2 on PCA9505). As a consequence, hardcoding the addresses is not a option.
Also, PCA has only 3 pins, so I can add max 8 slaves. I need to go for 16.
How can I give the slaves dynamic addresses?
How can I expand to 16 slaves?
Thanks for your help!
PS: PCA9505 = 40-bit parallel input/output (I/O) port expansion for I2C-bus applications
Personally, I like to use a configuration file to set the parameters needed for an application. In this case, it would define the addresses for each device you need to talk to. Arrays also help a lot here for expandability.
As far as extending your I2C bus, you can use something like a PCA9544A I2C mux. This chip allows for controlling 4 different buses. You will have to control the mux as part of your addressing of the individual chips.
From a brief read of the PCA9505 datasheet it doesn't look as if there's any way of selecting the device's address other than using those address lines. You are either going to have to multiplex the bus as crossrulz suggests, so that each device is at the same address on a different I2C bus, and add code to control which one you talk to at any one time, or add some hardware that sets the address lines differently for each device.
Will the devices be added to the bus via some sort of connector? If so could you include the address lines in the connector, so that each connector on the master adapter sets a different address for the device that's plugged in to it? Or if you connect devices in a daisy chain, each device could add 1 to the address on its upstream connector and output the new address on its downstream connector?
The RFP for TFTP says that TID's in most circumstances:
should be randomly chosen, so that the probability that the same
number is chosen twice in immediate succession is very low.
The thing is, these "TID"s are also used as UDP port numbers. But a typical network interface cannot just be dedicated for TFTP use. Some ports are liable to be in use, and others should essentially be "reserved" for specific applications. I'm not even sure where a program could go to look up this information at runtime.
So how is a TFTP implementation supposed to deal with this?
Since the host selecting the TID/port is the one opening it and telling the other party which one it's opened, you can simply try to open the port; if it's already in use or otherwise unavailable, this will fail, and you can re-try with a different port. (Note that since UDP and TCP are difference protocols, a TCP application and a UDP application can both be using the "same" port, since they are not, in fact, the same at all!) Do this in a simple loop until you find a "good" one. (Probably best to define a maximum number of tries and simply fail the connection if that's met before a good port is found, as this could be a sign of other issues that prohibit this from working at all.)
Stick to the ephemeral port range to play nice with best practices, although note that different systems define different ranges for this purpose. You could pick the range suitable to your system, or simply try to use a port above the "well-known" port range (i.e. above 1024); this may not give you an "ephemeral port" per se for your system, but so long as you can open it it should work fine.
I know there are various programs that sniff packets like WireShark, but I'm pretty sure you can only view the data. I want to know if it's possible to edit incoming packets. I'm not sure if packets are the right term. I just want to edit incoming data that is recieved through the internet and who's destination is a specific application. Let's say I am playing an online game. As it loads my computer, it is recieving information like "This person has 10 coins in their money pouch". Obviously not exactly like that but you get the point. I would like to be able to change the data so it is say 100 instead of 10. I know something like this would be possible if you were to do this: Imagine my computer is connected to the internet with an ethernet cord. There is a device attached to the ethernet cord which recieves the data and changes it and then lets it continue to my computer. I would just like to know if this is possible, and how it could be accomplished.
Thanks!
The way I do it, is one of 2 ways:
1.
If your application supports it set up a HTTP Proxy on your machine and you could software like burp / Fiddler to mess with the data
If not (the protocol is not HTTP) you could use either one of 2 options i'v tried [Both based on Hooking the API calls from the application to the OS]:
EchoMirage software that allow messing around with the packets
[Bit more advanced: ] There is a debugger named OllyDbg which has a plugin named Universal Hooker; it enables to hook any window API function and execute a python script on demend. the uHooker contains examples for how to hook WSASend and WSARecive (which are the API functions used in windows sockets).
I am trying to get a list of all IP's on a LAN network. The reason for this is I am writing an application that uses the STAR TSP100LAN receipt printer.
The process for obtaining the IP address of the printer is quite cumbersome for the end user. It involves turning the printer off, holding the paper feed button, turning the printer back on, waiting 15 seconds for the printer to obtain an IP address through DHCP and then finally spitting out a receipt with this information on it.
Seeing as the printer is not Bonjour enabled is it possible to get the IP address through other methods?
Any help is much appreciated! I hope this isn't a repeat question, but through my searching I can't seem to find a solution!
UPDATE: Ok after a bit of thinking I have come up with a pseudo-solution:
Determine the iPad's current IPAddress through NSHost.
Strip the last quadrant from the IPAddress
Using the stripped string as a prefix, iterate 1-255 for the last quadrant
Each iteration, attempt to open a port to the given address using the printer's sdk
If I get a valid response, I know that the IP is a printer
If not I exclude the IP from the available printers list.
So far this has been working, I set a timeout of 5 milleseconds for each port open attempt. But have found that this can return some null results despite there actually being a printer on the network with an IP Address assigned.
Perhaps if I get a null result the first time I should increase the timeout to 15 milleseconds for a second attempt at searching.
Your approach of polling the local /8 subnet is probably the best you can do. I can't find any API to get more detailed information about the network interface (i.e. subnet mask) in iOS. (Although using the subnet mask would be a more correct way to determine the range to iterate, if you could get it.)
As you've seen, 5ms is a pretty tight interval; In my experience, 15ms can STILL be pretty tight for a TCP connection over WiFi. As a next step, I would suggest parallelizing the polling of the range, and thereby enabling you to extend the interval you're willing to wait. The simplest way would probably be to use GCD. You could also start this polling process in the background before the user explicitly needs the printer, which might improve the user-perceived responsiveness of your app.
Alternately, you could use the CFSocket API to open all these connections (CFSocketCreate, CFSocketConnectToAddress, and friends) and get parallelism by servicing them all on the main thread with callbacks/the runloop. Then, as those callbacks come in, make a note of which addresses answer on the given port. Unless the printer isn't using TCP for some reason, this should be workable. Once you know which addresses answer on that port at all, you can iterate over that (hopefully much smaller) list connecting with the printer SDK itself. This approach will give you even more (and way more elegant) parallelism than spawning a huge number of GCD threads, but can be difficult to get your head around if you've not worked with runloops before.
Hope that helps.
You can quickly winnow the list down from 255 to a smaller number by pinging the broadcast address then looking into your arp cache.
Only works for hosts that respond to broadcast pings.
I have embedded firmware which have terminal over serial transmission. I am doing command from terminal which waits data (text file) which it should save to flash chip. However, writing flash is much slower than terminal transmission.
Text file may be pretty big (many kB), so in small embedded environment I cannot simply dump it to RAM. I though if it possible to communicate with standard terminal emulator (which have drag/dop support for files) to pause transmission every time when write buffer is full and tell continue again after write is done? I haven't find anything which may help me throught this.
Well, offcourse I can make PC frontend which understands this trick, but in basic level it should be nice if all function can be used through normal terminal if needed.
For a basic serial connection you could see if the hardware supports flow control. This would be the CTS, RTS lines (clear to send, request to send).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-232_RTS/CTS#RTS.2FCTS_handshaking
However many simple embedded systems do not implement this type of flow control.
If the hardware does not support flow control, then you will have to look at using some form of software flow control. You maybe able to implement the Xon/Xoff flow control ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XON/XOFF ) or could implement a simple file transfer protocol, like XMODEM, or ZMODEM, or even tftp. This depends on what your terminal can support.
I always use XMODEM when programming data into FLASH via a serial link from a PC. When using XMODEM it only sends one data packet at a time and waits for you to acknowledge the packet before sending the next one.
This means we control the flow via software on the receiving side:
Get packet ->
Write packet ->
Ack packet ->
Repeat util done...
XMODEM can be implemented on the smallest of devices (less than 1K RAM) and the code is very simple. All serial terminals support XMODEM (upto windows XP ship with an XMODEM capable terminal). XMODEM requires no special hardware.
Here is the spec.
Here is an example implementation.