This is driving me nuts for a couple of days now, so maybe you guys can give me some insights into what is going wrong.
I'm trying to read some data from an EEPROM (24LC16B) with an STM32(F0), but it just doesn't let me. I've tried an Arduino, which worked and does still work, so I do know that the wiring is correct.
This is my function to read the EEPROM data. (It is cut down to the very basis, just for testing): (Pastebin of my I2C_setup function)
uint16_t readEEPROMData(uint16_t deviceAddress, int memAddress){
// Wait while I2C peripheral is not ready
I2C_WaitForFlag(I2C_ISR_BUSY);
// Start I2C write transfer for 2 bytes, do not end transfer (SoftEnd_Mode)
I2C_TransferHandling(I2C1, 0xA2, 2, I2C_SoftEnd_Mode, I2C_Generate_Start_Write);
I2C_WaitForFlag(I2C_ISR_TXIS);
// For testing purpose, be sure to generate a stop command...
I2C_TransferHandling(I2C1, 0xA2, 0, I2C_AutoEnd_Mode, I2C_Generate_Stop);
return I2C_COMM_STATUS;
}
Here's an pastebin of the Arduino library I used.
I've used a logic analyzer to see how the communication is going, and now I really don't understand it. Here's a printscreen of the working Arduino version:
And here's a printscreen of the STM32 communication:
Logic analyzer exports (viewable with Saleae Logic)
As you can see, I'm using the same address (although I had to use 0xA2 with the STM32), and there are no weird things happening, besides the NACK. So what could possible be wrong?
Confirm if all bus timing requirement are satisfied.
Confirm if their is adequate delay after every write cycle (5 mS)
Confirm is bus capacitance falls under permissible limit of I2C (400 pF - Theoretically).
Confirm if the correct VCC is supplied
As mentioned by you are interfacing EEPROM with MCU using cable you need to conform on capacitance.
You can use an oscilloscope to check if their are any distortion in waveform. You can use a LCR meter to check the capacitance.
Try reducing bus speed 25kHz to 50 kHz and check waveform.
Try increasing the strength of pull resister.
The problem with the wrong VCC capacity (4.2v instead of 5v for example) is, that the timing can be different to. (not fully verified, but it fixed the problem)
Related
I have been using the Teensy 3.6 microcontroller board (180 MHz ARM Cortex-M4 processor) to try and implement a driver for a sensor. The sensor is controlled over SPI and when it is commanded to make a measurement, it sends out the data over two lines, DOUT and PCLK. PCLK is a 5 MHz clock signal and the bits are sent over DOUT, measured on the falling edges of the PCLK signal. The data frame itself consists of 1,024 16-bit values.
My first attempt consisted a relatively naïve approach: I attached an interrupt to the PCLK pin looking for falling edges. When it detects a falling edge, it sets a bool that a new bit is available and sets another bool to the value of the DOUT line. The main loop of the program generates a uint_16 value from these bits and collects 1,024 of these values for the full measurement frame.
However, this program locks up the Teensy almost immediately. From my experiments, it seems to lock up as soon as the interrupt is attached. I believe that the microprocessor is being swamped by interrupts.
I think that the correct way of doing this is by using the Teensy's DMA controller. I have been reading Paul Stoffregen's DMAChannel library but I can't understand it. I need to trigger the DMA measurements from the PCLK digital pin and have it read in bits from the DOUT digital pin. Could someone tell me if I am looking at this problem in the correct way? Am I overlooking something, and what resources should I view to better understand DMA on the Teensy?
Thanks!
I put this on the Software Engineering Stack Exchange because I feel that this is primarily a programming problem, but if it is an EE problem, please feel free to move it to the EE SE.
Is DMA the Correct Way to Receive High-Speed Digital Data on a Microprocessor?
There is more than one source of 'high speed digital data'. DMA is not the globally correct solution for all data, but it can be a solution.
it sends out the data over two lines, DOUT and PCLK. PCLK is a 5 MHz clock signal and the bits are sent over DOUT, measured on the falling edges of the PCLK signal.
I attached an interrupt to the PCLK pin looking for falling edges. When it detects a falling edge, it sets a bool that a new bit is available and sets another bool to the value of the DOUT line.
This approach would be call 'bit bashing'. You are using a CPU to physically measure the pins. It is a worst case solution that I see many experienced developers implement. It will work with any hardware connection. Fortunately, the Kinetis K66 has several peripherals that maybe able to assist you.
Specifically, the FTM, CMP, I2C, SPI and UART modules may be useful. These hardware modules are capable of reducing the work load from processing each bit to groups of bits. For instance, the FTM support a capture mode. The idea is to ignore the PCLK signal and just measure the time between edges. These times will be fixed in a bit period/CLK. If the timer captures a two bit period, then you know that two ones or zeros were sent.
Also, your signal seems like SSI which is an 'digital audio' channel. Unfortunately, the K66 doesn't have an SSI module. Typical I2C is open drain and it always has a start bit and fixed word size. It maybe possible to use this if you have some knowledge of the data and/or can attach some circuit to fake some bits (to be removed later).
You could use the UART and time between characters to capture data. The time will be a run of bits that aren't the start bit. However it looks like this UART module requires stop bits (the SIM feature are probably very limited).
Once you do this, the decision between DMA, interrupt and polling can be made. There is nothing faster than polling if the CPU uses the data. DMA and interrupts are needed if you need to multiplex the CPU with the data transfer. DMA is better if the CPU doesn't need to act on most of the data or the work the CPU is doing is not memory intensive (number crunching). Interrupts depend on your context save overhead. This can be minimized depending on the facilities your main line uses.
Some glue circuitry to adapt the signal to one of the K66 modules could go a long way to making a more efficient solution. If you can't change the signal, another (NXP?) SOC with an SSI module would work well. The NXP modules usually support chaining to an eDMA module as well as interrupts.
I am currently working on a larger Arduino Mega 2560 project; servo controlling and sensor readings involved. I am using ultrasonic proximity sensors (HC-SR04) with the NewPing 1.8 library that uses interrupts for detecting the echo of the sensors. Furthermore, I read temperature and light intensity measurements also. Distance data received from the HC-SR04 ultrasonic sensors are forwarded over USB to the host computer by using the cmdMessenger3 library. Servos are controlled by messages from the host computer using the standard Servo library.
The mess begins as soon as the NewPing library calls the ISR when the ultrasonic echo is detected. This is the function called by the NewPing library when distance data is available:
void sendSonarData(uint8_t sensorId, uint16_t distance) {
//noInterrupts();
cmdMsg3.sendCmdStart(kReadSonar);
cmdMsg3.sendCmdArg(sensorId);
cmdMsg3.sendCmdArg(distance);
cmdMsg3.sendCmdEnd();
//interrupts();
}
Here's another callback that sends temperature data to the host computer by the cmdMessenger3 library:
void sendTemperatureData(uint8_t sensorId, uint16_t temperature) {
//noInterrupts();
cmdMsg3.sendCmdStart(kReadTemperature);
cmdMsg3.sendCmdArg(sensorId);
cmdMsg3.sendCmdArg(temperature);
cmdMsg3.sendCmdEnd();
//interrupts();
}
Problem: While the Arduino e.g. tries to send the temperature data, the ISR from the ultrasonic sensor might jump-in and writes it's own data to the serial stream; ending up in a mess regarding the serial data sent to the host computer, because the sending process is not atomic, consisting of multiple commands to send one message (sendCmdStart->sendCmdArg->sendCmdEnd).
Here's an example:
Temperature is read an sendTemperatureData(...) is called
cmdMsg3.sendCmdStart(kReadTemperature); is called
cmdMsg3.sendCmdArg(sensorId); is called
ISR from sonar sensor jumps-in
sendTemperatureData(); is called
cmdMsg3.sendCmdStart(kReadSonar); is called
cmdMsg3.sendCmdArg(sensorId);
cmdMsg3.sendCmdArg(distance);
cmdMsg3.sendCmdEnd();
remaining statements from sendTemperatureData(...) are called
cmdMsg3.sendCmdArg(temperature);
cmdMsg3.sendCmdEnd();
resulting in a big mess on the serial communication ...
I then tried to prevent ISR calls during the send process by using noInterrupts()/interrupts(); making the send process kind of 'atomic'. But this leads to lots of other problems, millis()/micros() functions are not precise anymore, Serial communication breaks down, etc.; all relying on the timers that are disabled by noInterrupts(). Moreover, the servos behave also quite strange, since timing for the PWM signal generation seems to be messed up also.
Any ideas how to solve this 'concurrency' issue without breaking the interrupt-based paradigm in my program?
You are trying to do WAY to much work in your ISRs; generally speaking, they shouldn't do anything that requires a delay (and any serial message over 1 byte falls in that category). A more reasonable implementation would have the ISR simply store the sensor reading in global variables, and set a flag that the main program checks to see if it should send the serial message. You might need something fancier (like a message queue) if a second reading from the same sensor might arrive before the previous one had a chance to be sent.
I'm working through a set of beginner exercises with the Arduino Uno microcontroller. (A generic one, though, as this is what I've been supplied with.)
The program I'm running, which alternates between sending 1's and 0's to serial output depending on the state of a momentary switch, has set pin 2 to be the input for the switch. But. Whilst wiring up, I accidentally plugged the jumper cable in to pin 3 initially, and found it still mostly sent the 1's when the button was pushed. Some 0's, yet mostly 1's.
Initially I thought maybe it was just the board was a bit dodgy, but thought I'd experiment a bit. Plugging into pin 3 instead of pin 2 still fairly consistently sent 1's when the button was pushed, though the 1's flowed a little bit less consistently than when it was in pin 2. In pin 2 it was completely consistent by comparison. So I tried pin 4, but with that one there's no response at all.
Am I right in presuming the program's readings seems to get a little bit less responsive the further away I move the cable from the pin that I've programmed to act as input? Can anyone help me understand why this happens?
It's probably quite obvious that I'm new to electronics. :)
The program I've got uploaded to the board is as follows:
// digital pin 2 has a pushbutton attached to it. Give it a name:
int pushButton = 2;
// the setup routine runs once when you press reset:
void setup() {
// initialize serial communication at 9600 bits per second:
Serial.begin(9600);
// make the pushbutton's pin an input:
pinMode(pushButton, INPUT);
}
// the loop routine runs over and over again forever:
void loop() {
// read the input pin:
int buttonState = digitalRead(pushButton);
// print out the state of the button:
Serial.println(buttonState);
delay(1); // delay in between reads for stability
}
Floating pins are prone to noise. If you are not actually connecting anything to pin 2, you will be reading noise. Any wire connected to pin 2 (even connections on the board) will act like an antenna and pick up noise. You should always use the pin number that you are physically connecting in situations like these.
Leaving input pins open makes the microcontroller read a floating value which swings between 0 to 1. Also when wiring a switch to any pin, make sure to hook some pull-down resistor to make the input 0.
These are common for many electronics and proper notice to be taken while designing circuits of your own.
You need to look into datasheet where described functions of the pins.
The pins of MCU can be assigned various functions through special registers.
Two most common functions of the pins are input and output. MCUs provide internal pull-up and pull-down resistors which when used properly significantly simplifies electronic schemas.
If the input activated as input without any pull-??? then it's state is not defined and can be used as initiator of random number generator. Due this reason it is better to define what is default state of the input pin by connecting pull-??? resistors.
In Arduino IDE you are not limited to functions provided -- you still can use register manipulation directly, you just need to learn internals of the MCU.
If you do it properly then 2kbit program very often can be made as small as a few hundred bytes and it will work hundred times faster.
Operating registers in C is not much different from assembly, in C++ you get right away significant overhead -- although some benefits of registers still can be significant.
Libraries hide from programmers internals of MCU what is nice as it simplifies the programming and does not require to understand how MCU works, what registers are changed in what sequence.
But when you know hardware in and out -- you can squeeze from small MCU what is not possible with use of libraries (code will just not fit into the chip). MCUs are not that complicated (Atmel) to learn about it's internals -- benefits are significant.
Knowledge is a power which many avoid.
I am doing a class project involving an Arduino Uno and a Picaxe 14m2.
I am in the middle of attempting to code a program for the Arduino Uno that will allow me to send and output value to the input on the Picaxe.
So in layman's, this is what I wish to achieve:
I want the Arduino to check a sensor, and if the sensor returns a specific value. (- I know this part, but not the next.) I then want the Arduino to send a value (HIGH, or 1 .. something like that) as an output to one of the Picaxe input pins. I then need the Picaxe to notice a value has been sent, and then do something else.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.
If you are looking for that, you may want to specify what kind of PICAXE you have.
Since there is a difference in the types of these chips.
After that you may wanna look over the datasheet of the PICAXE so that you can find the instructions set and the type of program memory you have, "EEPROM....".
After that:
List your Is/Os, inputs and outputs.
Set your source code editor.
Write the source code and burn it to the PICAXE program
memory.(C, Assembly...)
Write your Arduino code, setting the Is/Os and telling the
Arduino how to deal with the signals in and out.(C language)
Make a circuit diagram for the hardware you are going to connect
between both chips.
Don't forget to see the loading effects on both the Arduino and
the PICAXE, because you don't want to burn your project hardware
after all.
Test your project and note that you will have to troubleshoot
both software and hardware whenever a problem occurs.
I suggest that you use the Oscilloscope to test the signals going in or coming out of both circuits + the sensor's signal.
For any extra thing you need the PICAXE to do, use If statements, because they are not so technical to implement and they are easy to write and troubleshoot.
For your scheme, you are actually making the Arduino give instructions to the PICAXE through a variable signal coming from a sensor.
^send me feedback and I will help more.
You will probably want to look into using UART (aka Serial) or i2c communication.
Serial communication should work with any PICAXE and Arduino, While i2c Will only work if you are using the X2 Series PICAXE Chips. i2c's main advantage is when using multiple slave devices (plus the master device, i.e. more than just 2 devices total) in which you can use the same two wires for up to around 128 devices. Serial (UART) communication is simpler, and only needs one wire (plus a common ground) to send data one way, it is what i'll show for the rest of this answer
Here is the manual entry for serial input for the PICAXE, and Here's the entry for serial output from the Arduino. The code you will need given your question will be something like the following:
For the arduino:
void setup(){
Serial.begin(9600);
}
void loop(){
if (conditionMet){ //whatever the condition is in your code
int bytesSent = Serial.write(“HIGH”); //send the string “HIGH"
}
}
and for the PICAXE:
main:
serin 6, T9600, ("HIGH") 'uses qualifier to look for exact message "HIGH"
'do whatever when criteria met
goto main
I'm new to microcontroller programming and I have interfaced my microcontroller board to another device that provides a status based on the command send to it but, this status is provided on the same I/O pin that is used to provide data. So basically, I have an 8-bit data line that is used as an output from the microcontroller, but for certain commands I get a status back on one of the data lines if I choose to read it. So I would be required to change the direction of this one line to read the status thus converting this line as an ouput to an input and then back to an output. Is this acceptable programming or will this changing of the I/O pin this frequently cause instability?
Thanks.
There should not be any problem with changing the direction of the I/O line to read the status returned by the peripheral provided that you change the state of the line to an input before the peripheral starts to drive the line and then do not try to drive the line as an output until the peripheral stops driving it. What you must try to avoid is contention between the two driver devices, i.e. having the two ends being driven to opposite states by the processor and peripheral. This would result in, at best a large spike in the power consumption or worse blown pin driver circuitry in the processor, peripheral or both.
You do not say what the processor or peripheral are so I cannot tell whether there are any control bits in the interface that enable the remote device to output the status so that you can know whether the peripheral is driving the line at any time.
I've done this on digital I/O pins without any problems but I'm very far from an expert on this. It probably depends entirely on which microcontroller you are using though.
Yes, it's perfectly fine to change I/O direction on microcontroller repeatedly.
That's the standard method of communicating over open-collector buses such as I2C and the iButton. (see PICList: busses for links to assembly-language code examples).
transmit 0 bit: set output LATx bit to 0, and then set TRISx bit to OUTPUT.
transmit 1 bit: keep output LATx bit at 0, and set TRIS bit to INPUT (let external resistor pull-up line to high)
listen for response from peripheral: keep output LATx bit at 0, and set TRIS bit to INPUT. Let external resistor pull-up line to high when peripheral is transmitting a 1, or let the peripheral pull the line low when peripheral is transmitting a 0. Read the bit from the PORTx pin.
If both ends of the bus correctly follow this protocol (in particular, if neither end actively drives the line to high), then you never have to worry about contention or current spikes.
It`s important to remember that any IO switching in high speed generates EMI.
Depending of switching frequency, board layout and devices sensibilities, this EMI can affect performance and reliability of your application.
If you are having problems in your application use an oscilloscope to check for irradiated EMI in your board lanes.