Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Orunmila last won the day on October 23

Orunmila had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

41 Excellent

About Orunmila

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

483 profile views
  1. The driver is more like a framework for you to inject your own functions to change the behavior. The framework is pretty solid but the injected stuff is not complete (as you have discovered). The way to do that is to add a counter to the code we just did. When you start a transaction set it to X and count down on every retry. If you enable the NAK polling callback that will cause a retry, so you just have to modify that address nak function to retry only a limited number of times and that would be it 🙂
  2. Ok, it is never that easy right :) Couple of small oversights up to now. 1. The do_I2C_SEND_STOP did not clear the busy flag 2. My code I posted above has a bug, doing a post-decrement and checkign for 0 later, which does not work. 3. NAK polling is enabled without any timeout, we need to disable this. After fixing these 3 things it should work as expected. This is how: 1. There is a bug in the driver at do_I2C_SEND_STOP, change that to look like this. It is setting the state to idle here but missing the clearing of the busy flag. static i2c_fsm_states_t do_I2C_SEND_STOP(void) { i2c1_driver_stop(); i2c_status.busy = 0; return I2C_IDLE; } 2. There is a bug in the code I posted above, I was doing to--, and after that checking for 0, but the post-decrement will reduce to to -1 by the time I was checking, so that should be like the following, main difference being : inline int mssp1_waitForEvent(uint16_t *timeout) { uint16_t to = 50000; // This will cause a 50ms timeout on I2C if(PIR3bits.SSP1IF == 0) { while(--to) { if(PIR3bits.SSP1IF) break; __delay_us(1); // We reduce this to 1us, the while loop will add some delay so the timeout will be at least 50ms } if (to == 0) { return -1; } } return 0; } 3. At this point the driver will operate in the default mode which is NAK Polling, this means that every time we get a NAK the driver will retry, assuming that the device we are talking to is busy, and we need to retry when a NAK happens. This is activated by setting the addressNAK callback to do a restart-write. We do not want this for your case, we want to fail and return when there is no answer. We can do this by commenting out the line in i2c_simple_master which enables this as follows: void i2c_write1ByteRegister(i2c_address_t address, uint8_t reg, uint8_t data) { while(!i2c_open(address)); // sit here until we get the bus.. i2c_setDataCompleteCallback(wr1RegCompleteHandler,&data); i2c_setBuffer(&reg,1); //i2c_setAddressNACKCallback(i2c_restartWrite,NULL); //NACK polling? i2c_masterWrite(); while(I2C_BUSY == i2c_close()); // sit here until finished. } Once you have done these three things the driver should do what you need, it will go back to idle after an address NAK with i2c_status.error set to I2C_FAIL.
  3. So there seems to be a couple of bugs here, firstly that it is not realizing that the address was a NAK, that is pretty standard and should work correctly, but after that it switches the command from write to read, which is also not correct. I would expect it to retry, but it does not make sense to retry using read if the initial attempt was to write to the device... I don't know how soon I will have time to debug this so here are some tips for you on how the driver works. The state machine and all decisions happen in i2c_masterOperation which is in i2c_master.c. In that function it will check if you are using the interrupt driven driver, in which case it will just return and let the state change happen in the IRQ, else it will run the poller, which will poll for the change in state and run the interrupt if the state change has happened. Essentially the poller is just polling the interrupt flag SSP1IF and calling the ISR when this is set. So there are 2 possible ways this could be going wrong. Case 1 is if the IF is never set, you can check this in the debugger but from what you describe it is not timing out which means that the IF seems to be set when the NAK happens. The other option is that NAK check is disabled or not successfully checked in the ISR. You should check here : void i2c_ISR(void) { mssp1_clearIRQ(); // NOTE: We are ignoring the Write Collision flag. // the write collision is when SSPBUF is written prematurely (2x in a row without sending) // NACK After address override Exception handler if(i2c_status.addressNACKCheck && i2c1_driver_isNACK()) { i2c_status.state = I2C_ADDRESS_NACK; // State Override } i2c_status.state = fsmStateTable[i2c_status.state](); } That if check there should be true. From what I can see, if you are not seeing a timeout, you must be seeing this ISR function being called from the poller, and this must set the state to I2C_ADDRESS_NACK, if this does not happen we can investigate if it is because the check is disabled or the ACKSTAT register has the wrong value. If it goes in there and the state is set the next place to look is where the NAK is processed, which should be here: // TODO: probably need 2 addressNACK's one from read and one from write. // the do NACK before RESTART or STOP is a special case that a new state simplifies. static i2c_fsm_states_t do_I2C_DO_ADDRESS_NACK(void) { i2c_status.addressNACKCheck = 0; i2c_status.error = I2C_FAIL; switch(i2c_status.callbackTable[i2c_addressNACK](i2c_status.callbackPayload[i2c_addressNACK])) { case i2c_restart_read: case i2c_restart_write: return do_I2C_SEND_RESTART(); default: return do_I2C_SEND_STOP(); } }
  4. Yes that is what I meant when I said "I should actually check why you are not getting one". I would expect that you would send out the address and receive back a NAK when there is nothing connected to the bus. It would be important that you do have the pull-up resistors on the bus though. Looks like I am going to have to crack out that hardware and look at the signals on my Saleae to see what exactly is going on. I left my Saleae at the office so I can only do that tomorrow. Stand by and I will let you know what I find.
  5. Ok this is slightly more complex because the status is one layer up so you have to pass the fact that there was a timeout up one layer, but that function does not return anything, so you have to change that. 3 easy steps. Start in i2c_driver.h and change the prototype of the function like this: INLINE int mssp1_waitForEvent(uint16_t*); Change the mssp code to this: inline int mssp1_waitForEvent(uint16_t *timeout) { uint16_t to = 50000; // This will cause a 50ms timeout on I2C if(PIR3bits.SSP1IF == 0) { while(to--) { if(PIR3bits.SSP1IF) break; __delay_us(1); // We reduce this to 1us, the while loop will add some delay so the timeout will be at least 50ms } if (to == 0) { return -1; } } return 0; } And then lastly catch the error in i2c_master.c inline void i2c_poller(void) { while(i2c_status.busy) { if (mssp1_waitForEvent(NULL) == -1) { i2c_status.state = I2C_ADDRESS_NACK; // State Override for timeout case } i2c_ISR(); } } So what this does is pass up -1 when there is a timeout, which will then advance the state machine (which happens in i2c_ISR() ) based on the status. Now as I said I just used the Address NAK behavior there, when you have no slave connected you should see an address NAK (I should actually check why you are not getting one), but in this case we are saying a timeout requires the same behavior which should work ok. If it does not we may want to add a state for timeout as I described before. But let's try the timeout using the I2C_ADDRESS_NACK method first for your board. If this does not work I will crack out a board and run it on the hardware to see exactly what is happening.
  6. It is just the other layer, it has mssp at the bottom, i2c_driver and master and simple on top of that. I just did not pay close enough attention there, I did not check if it would compile, let me check it out tomorrow and I can help you to get that to build.
  7. Last time that happened to me was yesterday!
  8. Ok, I am back up and running and I see that with that you will end up stuck in the next loop. You can force it to break out of the loop by simulating an error. The correct error for your case, and correct behavior in most cases when you get a timeout, would be to perform the AddressNAK behavior. You can trigger that by doing this: inline void mssp1_waitForEvent(uint16_t *timeout) { uint16_t to = 50000; // This will cause a 50ms timeout on I2C if(PIR3bits.SSP1IF == 0) { while(to--) { if(PIR3bits.SSP1IF) break; __delay_us(1); // We reduce this to 1us, the while loop will add some delay so the timeout will be at least 50ms } if (to == 0) { i2c_status.state = I2C_ADDRESS_NACK; // State Override for timeout case } } } If you want different behavior in the case of a timeout than you have for an address NAK you can always add an event to the state table called stateHandlerFunction, and at this location set the state to the new entry, and then copy the do_I2C_DO_ADDRESS_NACK() function and change the behavior in that to what you want to do different for a timeout. You may e.g. set the error to I2C_TIMEOUT which you could add to i2c_error_t and you probably do not want to do the do_I2C_SEND_RESTART. All of that is of course a more substantial change, but I could walk you through this if you want.
  9. You can use statically linked memory (like a global array of items) to allocate, or you can allocate it on the stack by creating the variable in the function where it is being used. In the case where you statically allocate it the case where you run out of memory will cause the code not to compile, which means of course when it does compile you are guaranteed that you can never fail in this way. If you allocate from any pool (or heap) you will always have to be excessively careful as things like fragmentation can easily catch you. FreeRTOS e.g. has a safe heap implementation which has malloc but no free, that allows you to call malloc during init to initialize all the memory you need, and get determinisitc failure if you do not have enough memory which is easy to debug. If you have a free then making it safe is substantially more difficult because you will fail at the point of maximum memory pressure and this will likely be a race condition which may have low probability of hapening during your testing. The best course of action is to design the system in such a way that it does not compile when you do not have sufficient resources, that way there is no guessing game. Proper error checking only gets you so far. I have seen a case where the init function of the UART (which was the only user interface) failed to allocate memory (linker settings were wrong of course), but the point is that error checking would not have helped much in that case. I have also seen similar cases where there is no way to recover especially in bootloaders.
  10. That delay is central to solving your problem. It is really part of some unfinished timeout code at the top of that function which you thankfully included into your question! The idea was that you can use the concept shown in the comments to produce a timeout in the driver. If you do not expect any timeouts you can safely remove the delay, it simply makes the timeout be a multiple of the delay number, so if we delay 100us, and we set timeout to 100 (the default) then we will get a 10ms timeout. What I would suggest is that you complete the timeout implementation as follows: First you need to set the timeout variable to a fixed value, and then we will reduce the unit delay to 1us (you could remove it altogether and the timeout will be 50,000 loop cycles. If this is too short you can always increase the variable to 32bit and increase the count or add a couple of NOP's to the function. It should look like this when you are done: inline void mssp1_waitForEvent(uint16_t *timeout) { uint16_t to = 50000; // This will cause a 50ms timeout on I2C if(PIR3bits.SSP1IF == 0) { while(to--) { if(PIR3bits.SSP1IF) break; __delay_us(1); // We reduce this to 1us, the while loop will add some delay so the timeout will be at least 50ms } } } MPLAB-X has died on me today, I am re-installing and will check out if this is sufficient to fix your problem as soon as I have it back up and running, in the meantime you could try the above.
  11. All too often I see programmers stumped trying to lay out the folder structure for their embedded C project. My best advice is that folder structure is not the real problem. it is just one symptom of dependency problems. If we fix the underlying dependencies a pragmatic folder structure for your project will probably be obvious due to the design being sound. In this blog I am going to first look briefly at Modularity in general, and then explore some program folder structures I see often, exploring if and why they smell. On Modularity in general Writing modular code is not nearly as easy as it sounds. Trying it out for real we quickly discover that simply distributing bits of code across a number of files does not solve much of our problems. This is because modularity is about Architecture and Design and, as such, there is a lot more to it. To determine if we did a good job we need to first look at WHY. WHY exactly do we desire the code to be modular, or to be more specific - what exactly are we trying to achieve by making the code modular? A lot can be said about modularity but to me, my goals are usually as follows: Reduce working set complexity through divide and conquer. Avoid duplication by re-using code in multiple projects (mobility). Adam Smith-like division of labor. When code is broken down into team-sized modules we can construct and maintain it more efficiently. Teams can have areas of specialization and everyone does not have to understand the entire problem in order to contribute. In engineering, functional decomposition is a process of breaking a complex system into a number of smaller subsystems with clear distinguishable functions (responsibilities). The purpose of doing this is to apply the divide and conquer strategy to a complex problem. This is also often called Separation of Concerns. If we keep that in mind we can test for modularity during code review by using a couple of simple core concepts. Separation: Is the boundary of every module clearly distinguishable? This requires every module to be in a single file, or else - if it spans multiple files - a single folder which encapsulates the contents of the module into a single entity. Independent and Interchangeable: This implies that we can also use the module in another program with ease, something Robert C Martin calls Mobility. A good test is to imagine how you would manage the code using version control systems if the module you are evaluating had to reside in a different repository, have its own version number and its own independent documentation. Individually testable: If a module is truly independent it can be used by itself in a test program without bringing a string of other modules along. Testing of the module should follow the Open-Closed principle which means that we can create our tests without modifying the module itself in any way. Reduction in working set Complexity: If the division is not making the code easier to understand it is not effective. This means that modules should perform abstraction - hiding as much of the complexity inside the module and exposing a simplified interface one layer of abstraction above the module function. Software Architecture is in the end all about Abstraction and Encapsulation, which means that making your code modular is all about Architecture. By dividing your project into a number of smaller, more manageable problems, you can solve each of these individually. We should be able to give each of these to a different autonomous team that has its own release schedule, it's own code repository and it's own version number. Exploring some program file structures Now that we have established some ground rules for testing for modularity, let's look at some examples and see if we can figure out which ones are no good and which ones can work based on what we discussed above. Example 1: The Monolith I would hope that we can all agree that this fails the modularity test on all counts. If you have a single file like this there really is only one way to re-use any of the code, and that is to copy and paste it into your other project. For a couple of lines this could still work, but normally we want to avoid duplicating code in multiple projects as this means we have to maintain it in multiple places and if a bug was found in one copy there would be no way to tell how many times the code has been copied and where else we would have to go fix things. I think what contributes to the problem here is that little example projects or demo projects (think about that hello world application) often use this minimalistic structure in the interest of simplifying it down to the bare minimum. This makes sense if we want to really focus on a very specific concept as an example, but it sets a very poor example of how real projects should be structured. Example 2: The includible main In this project, main.c grew to the point where the decision was made to split it into multiple files, but the code was never redesigned, so the modules still have dependencies back to main. That is usually when we see questions like this on Stack Overflow. Of course main.c cannot call into module.c without including module.h, and the module is really the only candidate for including main.h, which means that you have what we call a circular dependency. This mutual dependency indicates that we do not actually have 2 modules at all. Instead, we have one module which has been packaged into 2 different files. Your program should depend on the modules it uses, it does not make sense for any of these modules to have a reverse dependency back to your program, and as such it does not make any sense to have something like main.h. Instead, just place anything you are tempted to place in main.h at the top of main.c instead! If you do have definitions or types that you think can be used by more than one module then make this into a proper module, give it a proper name and let anything which uses this include this module as a proper dependency. Always remember that header files are the public interfaces into your C translation unit. Any good Object Oriented programming book will advise you to make as little as possible public in your class. You should never expose the insides of your module publically if it does not form part of the public interface for the class. If your definitions, types or declarations are intended for internal use only they should not be in your public header file, placing them at the top of your C file most likely the best. A good example is device configuration bits. I like to place my configuration bit definitions in a file by itself called device_config.h, which contains only configuration bit settings for my project. This module is only used by main, but it is not called main.h. Instead, it has a single responsibility which is easy to deduce from the name of the file. To keep it single responsibility I will never put other things like global defines or types in this file. It is only for setting up the processor config bits and if I do another project where the settings should be the same (e.g. the bootloader for the project) then it is easy for me to re-use this single file. In a typical project, you will want to have an application that depends on a number of libraries, something like this. Importantly we can describe the program as an application that uses WiFi, TempSensors, and TLS. There should not be any direct dependencies between modules. Any dependencies between modules should be classified as configuration which is injected by the application, and the code that ties all of this together should be part of the application, not the modules. It is important that we adhere to the Open-Closed principle here. We cannot inject dependencies by modifying the code in the libraries/modules that we use, it has to be done by changing the application. The moment we change the libraries to do this we have changed the library in an application-specific way and we will pay the price for that when we try to re-use it. It is always critical that the dependencies here run only in one direction, and that you can find all the code that makes up each module on your diagram in a single file or in a folder by itself to enable you to deal with the module as a whole. Example 3: The Aggregate or generic header file Projects often use an aggregate header file called something like "includes.h". This quickly leads to the pattern where every module depends on every other and is also known as Spaghetti Code. It becomes obvious if you look at the include graph or when you try and re-use a module in your project by itself for e.g. a test. When any header file is changed you have to re-test every module now. This fails the test of having clearly distinguishable boundaries and clear and obvious dependencies between modules. In MCC there is a good (or should I say bad?) example of such an aggregate header file called mcc.h. I created a minimal project using MCC for the PIC16F18877 and only added the Accel3 click to the project as a working example for this case. The include graph generated using Doxygen looks as follows. There is no indication from this graph that the Accelerometer is the one using the I2C driver, and although main never calls to I2C itself it does look like that dependency exists. The noble intention here is of course to define a single external interface for MCC generated code, but it ends up tying all of the MCC code together into a single monolithic thing. This means my application does not depend on the Accelerometer, it now depends instead on a single monolithic thing called "everything inside of MCC", and as MCC grows this will become more and more painful to manage. If you remove the aggregate header then main no longer includes everything and the kitchen sink, and the include graph reduces to something much more useful as follows: This works better because now the abstractions are being used to simplify things effectively, and the dependency of the sensor on I2C is hidden from the application level. This means we could change the sensor from I2C to SPI without having any impact on the next layer up. Another version of this anti-pattern is called "One big Header File", where instead of making one header that includes all the others, we just place all the contents of all those headers into a single global file. This file is often called "common.h" or "defs.h" or "global.h" or something similar. Ward Cunningham has a good comprehensive list of the problems caused by this practice on his wiki. Example 4: The shared include folder This is a great example of Cargo Culting something that sometimes works in a library, and applying it everywhere without understanding the consequences. The mistake here is to divide the project into sources and headers instead of dividing it into modules. Sources and headers are hopefully not the division that comes to mind when I ask you to divide code into modules! In the context of a library, where the intention is very much to have an external interface (include) separated from its internal implementation (src), this segregation can make sense, but your program is not a library. When you look at this structure you should ask how would this work in the following typical scenarios: If one of the libraries grows enough that we need to split it into multiple files? How will you now know which headers and/source belong to which library? If two libraries end up with identically named files? Typical examples of collisions are types.h, config.h, hal.h, callbacks.h or interface.h. If I have to update a library to a later version, how will I know which files to replace if they are all mixed into the same folder? How do I know which files are part of my project, and as such, I should maintain them locally, as opposed to which files are part of a library and should be maintained at the library project location which is used in many projects? This structure is bad because it breaks the core architectural principles of cohesion and encapsulation which dictates that we keep related things together, and encapsulate logical or functional groupings into clearly identifiable entities. If you do not get this right it leads to library files being copied into every project, and that means multiple copies of the same file in revision control. You also end up with files that have nothing to do with each other grouped together in the same folder. Example 5: A better way On the other hand, if you focus on cohesion and encapsulation you should end up with something more like this I am not saying this is the one true way to structure your project, but with this arrangement, we can get the libraries from revision control and simply replace an entire folder when we do. It is also obvious which files are part of each library, and which ones belong to my project. We can see at a glance that this project has it's own code and depends on 3 libraries. The structure embodies information about the project which helps us manage it, and this information is not duplicated requiring us to keep data from different places in sync. We can now include these libraries into this, or any other project, by simply telling Git to fetch the desired version of each of these folders from its own repository. This makes it easy to update the version of any particular library, and name collisions between libraries are no longer an issue. Additionally, as the library grows it will be easy to distinguish in my code which library I have a dependency on, and exactly which types.h file I am referring to when I refer to the header files as follows. Conclusion Many different project directory structures could work for your project. We are in no way saying that this is "the one true structure". What we are saying is that when the time comes to commit your project to a structure, do remember the pros and cons of each of these examples we discussed. That way you will at least know the coming consequences of your decisions before you are committed to them. Robert C. Martin, aka Uncle Bob, wrote a great article back in 2000 describing the SOLID architectural principles. SOLID is focussed on managing dependencies between software modules. Following these principles will help create an architecture that manages the dependencies between modules well. A SOLID design will naturally translate into a manageable folder structure for your embedded C project.
  12. Some advice for Microchip: If this was my product I would stop selling development kits with A1 or A3 silicon to customers. I2C is widely used and it will create a really bad impression of the product's reliability if customers were to evaluate it with defective silicon. And please fix the Errata, your workaround for I2C Issue 1 does not work as advertized !
  13. Ok some feedback on this one. The workaround in the Errata turns out does not work. The Errata claims you can But this does not work at all. We clear BCL and wait for both S and P bits to be 0 but this never happens and we end up waiting forever. As an attempt to work around this we decided to try to reset the entire module, this means that we set the ON bit in I2CxCON to 0 to disable the module, this resets all the status bits and resets the I2C state machine, once this is done we wait 4 clock cycles (since the second workaround in the Errata suggests we should wait for 4 clock cycles) and then we set the ON bit back to a 1. This clears the BCL error condition correctly and allows us to continue using the peripheral. We have not yet tried to implement the workaround with the timeout that resets the I2C peripheral if it becomes unresponsive without warning, that will be coming up next, but it does seem like that will work fine as it will also disable the entire module when the condition happens which seems to clean out the HW state machine which it looks like is the culprit here. The I2C peripheral section 24 of the family datasheet can be found here http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/devicedoc/61116f.pdf
  14. I am struggling to figure out how to work around what seems to be a silicon bug in the PIC32MZ2048EFM on A1 silicon. I am using the development kit DM320104. From MPLABX I can see that the board I have is running A1 revision silicon. Looking at the Errata for the device I found that there is a silicon Errata on the I2C peripheral and I am hitting at least 2 of the described problems. • False Error Condition 1: False Master Bus Collision Detect (Master-mode only) – The error is indicated through the BCL bit (I2CxSTAT). • False Error Condition 3: Suspended I2C Module Operations (Master or Slave modes) – I2C transactions in progress are inadvertently suspended without error indications. In both cases the Harmony I2C driver ends up in a loop never returning again. For condition 1 the ISR keeps triggering and I2C stops working and for condition 3 the driver just gets stuck. I have tried to implement the workarounds listed in that Errata but I seem to have no luck. The Errata does not have an example, only a text description so I was hoping someone on here has tried this and can help me figure out what I am doing wrong. Currently for condition 1 from the bus collision ISR we are clearing the ISR flag and the BCL bit and then setting the start bit in the I2C1STAT register, but the interrupt keeps on firing away and no start condition is happening. Any idea what we are doing wrong?
  15. Absolutley, and nice examples! Hungarian notation breaks the abstraction of having a variable name with unspecified underlying storage, so I think it is the worst way to leak implementation details!
  • Create New...