I am starting to use an Arduino Due for some project work which requires a UART and am confused by what looks like an interaction between UART interrupts and I/O.
My first piece of code was a small routine to set up the UART, send out data continuously by loading the transmit buffer upon receipt of a TXBE interrupt. I had the UART output hooked up to an oscilloscope and had set another I/O pin as a general purpose output which would flip state and therefore be used to trigger the scope when the transmit buffer was reloaded. Problem was that I was seeing UART data and it looked good, but the I/O wasn't flipping. At this point my loop() routine was empty so I set up another output port and in loop() just toggled its state as a sanity check. Still no output except for the UART.
Here's the code that I ended up with:
uint32_t tempo; // 32-bit temporary variable
boolean flag = true;
void UART_Handler(void) {
REG_UART_THR = 0x6DL; // load data into the transmit buffer
if (flag) {
REG_PIOD_SODR = 0x02L; // drive PD1 high
flag = false;
} else {
REG_PIOD_CODR = 0x02L; // drive PD1 low
flag = true;
}
}
void setup() {
// set up the UART I/O
REG_PIOA_IDR = 0x0300L; // disable interrupts on PA8 and PA9
tempo = REG_PIOA_ABSR; // get the current settings of the AB select register
REG_PIOA_ABSR = tempo & 0xFFFFFCFF; // set PA8 and PA9 to peripheral A control
REG_PIOA_PDR = 0x0300L; // disable parallel I/O for PA8 and PA9
NVIC_EnableIRQ(UART_IRQn); // enable UART interrupts in NVIC
// now set up the UART
tempo = REG_PMC_PCSR0; // get the current settings of the peripheral clock register 0
REG_PMC_PCER0 = tempo | 0x0100L; // enable the UART clocks
REG_UART_CR = 0x0CL; // reset UART receiver and transmitter
REG_UART_MR = 0x0800L; // set to normal outputs with no parity
REG_UART_BRGR = 0x89L; // baud rate set to 38400
REG_UART_IDR = 0x1FBL; // disable all UART interrupts
REG_UART_IER = 0x0800L; // enable TXBUFE interrupt
REG_UART_CR = 0x50L; // enable UART receiver and transmitter
// set up the debug outputs
REG_PIOD_IDR = 0x03L; // disable interrupts on PD0 and PD1
REG_PIOD_PER = 0x03L; // enable parallel I/O for PD0 & PD1
REG_PIOD_OER = 0x03L; // set PD0 & PD1 output enabled
REG_PIOD_CODR = 0x03L; // drive PD0 & PD1 low
}
void loop() // run over and over
{
REG_PIOD_SODR = 0x01L; // drive PD0 high
delay(1);
REG_PIOD_CODR = 0x01L; // drive PD0 low
delay(1);
}
the scope output can be viewed at http://www.iwanczuk.com/temp/scope1.png (don't have enough reputation here to post images!).
After staring at things for while and getting no insight I disabled the TXBUFE interrupts by commenting out the line REG_UART_IER = 0x0800L; // enable TXBUFE interrupt and the toggling of PortD1 was then visible but obviously no UART output (see http://www.iwanczuk.com/temp/scope2.png). It seems that the two are mutually exclusive which would be just silly if it were true. I am sure I'm missing something but I can't see or find what it is.
I have read the SAM3X8E data sheet to see if there's anything obvious I'm missing and if there is I can't see it. I've also done what I think are relevant web searches with no luck in finding a solution. I have also tried using general purpose outputs for the two outputs on port A and port D and have tried this on two Arduino Due boards with similar results on both.
Anyone have any ideas what I might be doing wrong? Thanks in advance.
Well, I have got to the bottom of this problem. Not sure it's the best answer but it's a solution. The long and short of it is to avoid TXBE interrupts. If I use TXEMPTY interrupts instead it works fine.
A line on page 168 of the Atmel data sheet says (sic) "A interrupt can enter pending state even it is disabled" so I wondered if the problem with TXBE was because I was not clearing the pending interrupt before or even inside the ISR so I added NVIC_ClearPendingIRQ(UART_IRQn); at the start of the ISR and also just before I enabled the TXBE interrupt but the (mis)behaviour didn't change.
The operation of TXEMPTY is still a little odd (to me) because it appears that the interrupt is generated by the transmit shift register just being empty, not when it goes empty. If you enable interrupts without having loaded the transmit buffer you will immediately get an interrupt. Some may like this "self=priming' behaviour, but it doesn't do it for me. I am writing my sending routine such that the TXEMPTY interrupt is not enabled until the transmitter has been loaded with the first byte to be sent.
Based on this post on the Arduino Forum: http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=186388.0 I presume that the USARTs have a similar issue.
Hopefully this will help others.
I just realised what could be the real error at the source of my problem. The UART interrupt register descriptions talk about the TXBUFE bit in the context of transmit buffer empty and so my assumption was that this is the bit that tells me when I can put another byte into the transmit holding register. However the UART Status Register description say that the TXBUFE bit is "the buffer full signal from the transmitter PDC channel". The latter puts a whole different slant on what this bit does. According to the UART Status Register description the bit I need to be looking at is the TXRDY bit!
Related
I'm trying to communicate between two Linux systems via UART.
I want to send large chunks of data. With the specified Baudrate it should take around 5 seconds, but it takes nearly 10 times the expected time.
As I'm sending more than the buffer can handle at once it is send in small parts and I'm draining the buffer in between. If I measure the time needed for the drain and the number of bytes written to the buffer I calculate a Baudrate nearly 10 times lower than the specified Baudrate.
I would expect a slower transmission as the optimal, but not this much.
Did I miss something while setting the UART or while writing? Or is this normal?
The code used for setup:
int bus = open(interface.c_str(), O_RDWR | O_NOCTTY | O_NDELAY); // <- also tryed blocking
if (bus < 0) {
return;
}
struct termios options;
memset (&options, 0, sizeof options);
if(tcgetattr(bus, &options) != 0){
close(bus);
bus = -1;
return;
}
cfsetspeed (&options, B230400);
cfmakeraw(&options); // <- also tried this manually. did not make a difference
if(tcsetattr(bus, TCSANOW, &options) != 0)
{
close(bus);
bus = -1;
return;
}
tcflush(bus, TCIFLUSH);
The code used to send:
int32_t res = write(bus, data, dataLength);
while (res < dataLength){
tcdrain(bus); // <- taking way longer than expected
int32_t r = write(bus, &data[res], dataLength - res);
if(r == 0)
break;
if(r == -1){
break;
}
res += r;
}
B230400
The docs are contradictory. cfsetspeed is documented as requiring a speed_t type, while the note says you need to use one of the "B" constants like "B230400." Have you tried using an actual speed_t type?
In any case, the speed you're supplying is the baud rate, which in this case should get you approximately 23,000 bytes/second, assuming there is no throttling.
The speed is dependent on hardware and link limitations. Also the serial protocol allows pausing the transmission.
FWIW, according to the time and speed you listed, if everything works perfectly, you'll get about 1 MB in 50 seconds. What speed are you actually getting?
Another "also" is the options structure. It's been years since I've had to do any serial I/O, but IIRC, you need to actually set the options that you want and are supported by your hardware, like CTS/RTS, XON/XOFF, etc.
This might be helpful.
As I'm sending more than the buffer can handle at once it is send in small parts and I'm draining the buffer in between.
You have only provided code snippets (rather than a minimal, complete, and verifiable example), so your data size is unknown.
But the Linux kernel buffer size is known. What do you think it is?
(FYI it's 4KB.)
If I measure the time needed for the drain and the number of bytese written to the buffer I calculate a Baudrate nearly 10 times lower than the specified Baudrate.
You're confusing throughput with baudrate.
The maximum throughput (of just payload) of an asynchronous serial link will always be less than the baudrate due to framing overhead per character, which could be two of the ten bits of the frame (assuming 8N1). Since your termios configuration is incomplete, the overhead could actually be three of the eleven bits of the frame (assuming 8N2).
In order to achieve the maximum throughput, the tranmitting UART must saturate the line with frames and never let the line go idle.
The userspace program must be able to supply data fast enough, preferably by one large write() to reduce syscall overhead.
Did I miss something while setting the UART or while writing?
With Linux, you have limited access to the UART hardware.
From userspace your program accesses a serial terminal.
Your program accesses the serial terminal in a sub-optinal manner.
Your termios configuration appears to be incomplete.
It leaves both hardware and software flow-control untouched.
The number of stop bits is untouched.
The Ignore modem control lines and Enable receiver flags are not enabled.
For raw reading, the VMIN and VTIME values are not assigned.
Or is this normal?
There are ways to easily speed up the transfer.
First, your program combines non-blocking mode with non-canonical mode. That's a degenerate combination for receiving, and suboptimal for transmitting.
You have provided no reason for using non-blocking mode, and your program is not written to properly utilize it.
Therefore your program should be revised to use blocking mode instead of non-blocking mode.
Second, the tcdrain() between write() syscalls can introduce idle time on the serial link. Use of blocking mode eliminates the need for this delay tactic between write() syscalls.
In fact with blocking mode only one write() syscall should be needed to transmit the entire dataLength. This would also minimize any idle time introduced on the serial link.
Note that the first write() does not properly check the return value for a possible error condition, which is always possible.
Bottom line: your program would be simpler and throughput would be improved by using blocking I/O.
I've recently noticed a very odd behavior on my system (running on an AT91SAM9G15): Despite the fact I'm reading serial port continuously, TTY driver takes sometimes 1,2s to deliver data from the input queue.
Thing is: I'm not losing any data, it just takes too many calls to read for it to come.
Maybe my code will help to explain the problem.
First off, I set my serial port:
/* 8N1 */
tty.c_cflag = (tty.c_cflag & ~CSIZE) | CS8;
/** Parity bit (none) */
tty.c_cflag &= ~(PARENB | PARODD);
/** Stop bit (1)*/
tty.c_cflag &= ~CSTOPB;
/* Noncanonical mode */
tty.c_lflag = 0;
tty.c_oflag = 0;
tty.c_cc[VMIN] = 0;
tty.c_cc[VTIME] = 0;
Later on, select is called:
s_ret = select(rfid_fd + 1, &set, NULL, NULL, &port_timeval);
So read() can do its magic:
...
if ((rd_ret = read(rfid_fd, &recv_buff[u16_recv_len], (u16_req_len - u16_recv_len))) > 0)
...
Right afterwards, if I keep reading serial port for 15s for example, for several times I can see no data coming and that data, which I know arrived on time (it's timestamped), comes late. Delays in fetching data from input queue may vary from 300ms to 1,5s.
I've tried every kind of setting I could think of. It's tricky now since I don't know if at91 UART drivers aren't delivering data to tty driver or tty driver isn't fetching it? Which is which here?
Any help would be appreciated.
The normal procedure to set port flags is to read the termios structure, save it for later restoring, modify (in a copy of it) the flags you want to change, and do a tcsetattr() call. You have initialised c_lflag = 0; which can have some secondary effects related to your problem.
The next thing you have to consider is reading the documentation about VMIN and VTIME elements. Setting both to 0 makes the driver a non blocking device, so you'll get in a loop trying to read whatever should be in the buffer. But before doing that, think twice that you have two threads competing for putting the characters in the buffer (your process, trying to get it from the buffer and the driver interrupt routine, that tries to put the character just read) without rest. It should be better (and probably here is the problem) to wait for one character to be available, setting VMIN to 1 and VTIME to 0. This makes the driver to awake your process as soon as one character is available, and probably nearer to what you want.
After all this amount of guesses, you haven't post any reproducible code that can be used to check what you say, so this is the most we can do to help you.
I'm developing on an am335x system with ubuntu and the last kernel released from TI (vendor).
I'm using a virtual tty device (ttyUSB0) for comunicate with a remote device. After about one hour of continuous comunication (cyclic open-transmit-receive-close) I get a strange behaviour of read(). If the UART is opened in blocking mode the read hangs forever (no matter what value I set on VMIN&VTIME). If I open it in non-blocking mode it return -1 for ever (after 1 hour).
Now I'm using select() to check if there is data to be read.
In case I receive a negative result from select, how can I handle the error? What is a good practice? I have to restart the service?
This code is a part of a service that start at boot time(with upstart). When it hangs, if I restart it, it works again. The restart do not have any effect on the device with which I'm communicating. It works properly.
This is a piece of code, just for completeness:
FD_ZERO(&set); /* clear the set */
FD_SET(tty_fileDescriptor, &set); /* add our file descriptor to the set */
timeout.tv_sec = 10;
timeout.tv_usec = 0;
rv = select(tty_fileDescriptor + 1, &set, NULL, NULL, &timeout);
if(rv>0){
letti=read(tty_fileDescriptor,payLoadTMP,300);
}if(rv<0){
perror("select")
//what to do here to re-stablish communication?
}
The perror's output is:
select: Resource temporarily unavailable
this is a grep on dmesg
usb 1-1: cp210x converter now attached to ttyUSB0
any ideas? How to re-stablish connection?
Currently I am developing GPIO kernel module for friendlyarm Linux 2.6.32.2 (mini2440). I am from electronics background and new to Linux.
The kernel module loaded at start-up and the related device file is located in /dev as gpiofreq.
At first time writing to device file, GPIO pin toggles continuously at 50kHz. At second time writing it stop toggling. At third time, it starts again, and so on.
I have wrote separate kernel module to generate freq. but CPU freezes after writing device file at first time. The terminal prompt is shown but I can not run any command afterwards.
Here is the code-snippet:
//calling function which generates continuous freq at gpio
static int send_freq(void *arg)
{
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
for(;;)
{
gpio_set_value(192,1);
udelay(10);
gpio_set_value(192,0);
udelay(10);
}
return 0;
}
Here is the device write code,
which start or stop with any data written to device file.
if(toggle==0)
{
printk("Starting Freq.\n");
task=kthread_run(&send_freq,(void *)freq,"START");
toggle=1;
}
else
{
printk("Operation Terminated.\n");
i = kthread_stop(task);
toggle=0;
}
You are doing an infinite loop in a kernel thread, there is no room for anything else
to happen, except IRQ and maybe other kernel thread.
What you could do is either
program a timer on your hardware and do your pin toggling in an interrupt
replace udelay with usleep_range
I suggest doing thing progressively, and starting in the kHz range with usleep_range, and eventually moving to cust om timer + ISR
in either case, you will probably have a lot of jitter, and doing such gpio toggling may be a good idea on a DSP or a PIC, but is a waste of resources on ARM + Linux, unless you are hardware assisted with pwm capable gpio engine.
I am writing a device driver to handle interrupts for a PCIe card, which currently works for any interrupt vector raised on the IRQ line.
But it has a few types that can be raised, flagged by the Vector register. So now I need to read the vector information and be a bit cleverer...
So, do I :-
1/ Have separate dev nodes /dev/int1, /dev/int2, etc for each interrupt type, and just doc that int1 is for vector type A etc?
1.1/ As each file/char-devices will have its own minor number, when opened I'll know which is which. i think.
1.2/ ldd3 seems to demo this method.
2/ Have one node /dev/int (as I do now) and have multiple processes hanging off the same read method? sounds better?!
2.1/ Then only wake the correct process up...?
2.2/ Do I use separate wait_queue_head_t wait_queues? Or different flag/test conditions?
In the read method:-
wait_event_interruptible(wait_queue, flag);
In the handler not real code! :-
int vector = read_vector();
if vector = A then
wake_up_interruptible(wait_queue, flag)
return IRQ_HANDLED;
else
return IRQ_NONE/IRQ_RETVAL?
EDIT: notes from peoples comments :-
1) my user-space code mmap's all of the PCIe firmware registers
2) User-space code has a few threads, each perform a blocking read on the device driver device nodes, which then returns data from the firmware when an interrupt occurs. I need the correct thread woken up depending on the interrupt type.
I am not sure I understand correctly what you mean with the Vector register (a pointer to some documentation would help me precise for your case).
Anyway, any PCI device gets a unique interrupt number (given by the BIOS or some firmware on other architectures than x86). You just need to register this interrupt in your driver.
priv->name = DRV_NAME;
err = request_irq(pdev->irq, your_irqhandler, IRQF_SHARED, priv->name,
pdev);
if (err) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "cannot request IRQ\n");
goto err_out_unmap;
}
One other thing that I do not really understand is why you would export your interrupts as a dev node: interrupts are certainly something that need to remain in your driver/kernel code. But I guess here you want to export a device that is then accessed in userspace. I just find /dev/int no to be a good naming.
For your question about multiple dev nodes: if your different interrupt sources then provide access to different hardware resources (even if on the same PCI board) I would go for option 1), with a wait_queue for each device. Otherwise, I would go for option 2)
Since your interrupts are coming from the same physical device, if you chose option 1) or option 2), the interrupt line will have to be shared and you will have to read the vector in your interrupt handler to define which hardware resource raised the interrupt.
For option 1), it would be something like this:
static irqreturn_t pex_irqhandler(int irq, void *dev) {
struct pci_dev *pdev = dev;
int result;
result = pci_read_config_byte(pdev, PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE, &myirq);
if (result) {
int vector = read_vector();
if (vector == A) {
set_flagA(flag);
} else if (vector == B) {
set_flagB(flag);
}
wake_up_interruptible(wait_queue, flag);
return IRQ_HANDLED;
} else {
return IRQ_NONE;
}
For option 2, it would be similar, but you would have only one if clause (for the respective vector value) in every different interrupt handler that you would request for every node.
If you have different chanel you can read() from, then you should definitely use different minor number. Imagine you have a card whith four serial port, you would definitely want four /dev/ttySx.
But does your device fit whith this model ?
First, I assume you're not trying to get your code into the mainline kernel. If you are, expect a vigorous discussion about the best way to do this. If you're writing a simple interrupt handling driver for a card which is mostly driven by mmap from user-space, there are a lot of ways to solve this problem.
If you use multiple device nodes (option 1), you can also implement poll so that a single application can open multiple device nodes and wait for a selection of interrupts. The minor number will be sufficient to tell them apart. If you have a wake queue for each vector, you can wake only the relevant listeners. You'll need to latch the vector after a successful poll to be sure that the read succeeds.
If you use a single device node (option 2), you'll need to add some extra magic so that the threads can register their interest in particular interrupt vectors. You could do this with an ioctl, or have the threads write the interrupt vectors to the device. Each thread should open the device node to get its own file descriptor. You can then associate the list of requested vectors with each open file descriptor. As a bonus, you can let the application read the interrupt vector from the device, so it knows which one happened.
You'll need to think about how the interrupt gets cleared. The interrupt handler will need to remove the interrupt, then store the result so it can be passed to user-space. You might find a kfifo useful for this rather than a wait queue. If you have a fifo for each open file descriptor, you can distribute the interrupt notifications to each listening application.