Please feel free to slap me and send a link if this question has already been answered; I just couldn't find it. I did search though.
I've been trouble-shooting communication with a serial device. In looking over lots of documentation, I now understand what the settings for "baud rate," "data bits," "stop bit," and "parity" mean. But what I can't seem to understand is who (sender or receiver) determines these settings.
Say I have a serial device plugged into my computer. In my code, I open a connection to the serial port and specify something like 9600,8,E,1. When I specify these settings, do these get sent to the sending itself, so that it knows how to send the data to my receiver? Or is it more common for a sender to expect a receiver to comply with strict settings?
The issue I'm having is that I attempted to use "Even" parity, and that resulted in tons of irregular transfer errors. When I use "Odd" parity, however, those errors go away. There is also a USB to Serial adapter involved in my set up. There aren't any transfer errors with Even or Odd parity without the adapter in the middle. So I'm just having a hard time understanding whether the device itself doesn't support sending with Even parity, or whether the adapter is the thing causing trouble, etc.
Thanks.
When I specify these settings, do these get sent to the sending itself, so that it knows how to send the data to my receiver?
No.
To expand on the comment by Hans Passant, both sides of the serial port have to agree on the settings, otherwise they won't talk to each other. If they don't agree, you will get gibberish data on either side as the hardware will read the data at an incorrect time. The settings are normally documented in the manual for the device that you are attempting to communicate with. For example, to communicate with a Cisco router, you will generally use the following settings:
Bits per sec : 9600
Data bits : 8
Parity : none
Stop bits : 1
Flow control : none
When you setup the serial port on your side, you must use these same settings, there is no hardware-level handshake between the two devices that determines the speed that they will communicate at.
Sometimes, the format for the serial port settings may be given in a format like the following:
9600,8,N,1
Which is just shorthand for the above quote(9600 baud, 8 data bits, no parity, 1 stop bit)
In my experience, most devices default to 9600,8,N,1, the next common serial setting is 115200,8,N,1
Related
I have been trying to set up two XBees to communicate since the last three days. X-CTU seems to be the perfect option to do so, however, it is a real menace when it comes to discovering XBees on serial ports.
I was able to detect one XBee by luck just once and the other one never showed up. I have even replaced both my XBees. I am trying to figure out the alternative, i.e. using a serial console to perform the operation. I haven't been able to receive an OK response from the device upon issuing +++.
Since I haven't had a good experience using a PC to communicate with ESP8266 devices earlier, I tried to figure out a workaround by using the second Serial port of an Arduino to send such configuration messages and read the response by printing it out on the default serial console.
It also appears that configuration messages can differ depending on the mode of the device. If it's in API mode, the frame has to be generated in a specific format (I use the X-CTU frame generator for this purpose).
Why am I not able to receive a response from the XBee upon issuing a +++?
The devices are Series 1 XBees and the exact part number is XB24-AWI-001. Any help is highly appreciated.
Have you considered the XBee being in API mode? Maybe should you consider to reflash the device in AT mode to start playing with it.
To test if it's in API mode, you can refer to the guide, chapter 9 for the API mode structure:
http://eewiki.net/download/attachments/24313921/XBee_ZB_User_Guide.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1380318639117&api=v2
Basically, a datagram in API mode starts with ~, and it's built as follows:
[0x7E|length(2B)|Command(1B)|Payload(length-1B)|Checksum(1B)]
As 0x7E is ~ on the ASCII table, you should try typing a bogus datagram in a serial terminal session like:
~ <C-d> AAAA
N.B.: The <C-d> characters means Control-d under unix., which is the EOF character.
Obviously such a message isn't likely to work, and you will receive a reply asking you to send that datagram again. That's because the EOF character being ASCII code 4, it means that the length of the datagram will be 4 bytes. So then you send four bogus bytes, the checksum will be A, which is very likely to be right, and the receiver will assume the transmission has been corrupted. So the datagram will be asked again, meaning you will receive a datagram to do that query.
Though I can only advice you to consider running it only in API mode (more reliable and a better API, but you cannot play around with it and understand what's going on by tapping on the line with a logic analyzer… though giving enough time, you'll start to read API datagrams like it's English ☺).
I wrote a page with a few resources to check on how to reflash the XBees:
https://github.com/hackable-devices/polluxnzcity/wiki/Flash-zigbee
and here's other advices from another totally unrelated project:
https://github.com/andrewrapp/xbee-api#documentation
And I also wrote a lib (aimed at beaglebones but you can tweak it for your use) that handles API mode 2 with XBees:
https://github.com/hackable-devices/polluxnzcity/blob/master/PolluxGateway/include/xbee/xbee_communicator.h
https://github.com/guyzmo/polluxnzcity/blob/master/PolluxGateway/src/xbee/xbee_communicator.C
but I bet with a little google search you can find more widely used libraries than those ones, and even some aimed to be run on Arduinos (N.B.: that lib was originally written for Arduinos, and then adapted to run for Beaglebone, so reversing the operation shouldn't be hard).
I'm trying to understand whether its redundant for me to include some kind of CRC or checksum in my communication protocol. Does the chrome.serial and other chrome hardware communication API's in general if anyone can speak to them (e.g. chrome.hid, chrome.bluetoothLowEnergy, ...)
Serial communications is simply a way of transmitting bits and its major reason for existence is that it's one bit at a time -- and can therefore work over just a single communications link, such as a simple telephone line. There's no built-in CRC or checksum or anything.
There are many systems that live on top of serial comms that attempt to deal with the fact that communications often takes place in a noisy environment. Back in the day of modems over telephone lines, you might have to deal with the fact that someone else in the house might pick up another extension on the phone line and inject a bunch of noise into your download. Thus, protocols like XMODEM were invented, wrappering serial comms in a more robust framework. (Then, when XMODEM proved unreliable, we went to YMODEM and ZMODEM.)
Depending on what you're talking to (for example, a device like an Arduino connnected to a USB serial port over a wire that's 25 cm long) you might find that putting the work into checksumming the data isn't worth the trouble, because the likelihood of interference is so low and the consequences are trivial. On the other hand, if you're talking to a controller for a laser weapon, you might want to make sure the command you send is the command that's received.
I don't know anything about the other systems you mention, but I'm old enough to have spent a lot of time doing serial comms back in the '80s (and now doing it again for devices using chrome.serial, go figure).
I'm using Chrome's serial API to communicate with Arduino devices, and I have yet to experience random corruption in the middle of an exchange (my exchanges are short bursts, 50-500 bytes max). However, I do see garbage bytes blast out if a connection is flaky or a cable is "rudely" disconnected (like a few minutes ago when I tripped over the FTDI cable).
In my project, a mis-processed command wont break anything, and I can get by with a master-slave protocol. Because of this, I designed a pretty slim solution: The Arduino slave listens for an "attention byte" (!) followed by a command byte, after which it reads a fixed number of data bytes depending on the command. Since the Arduino discards until it hears an attention byte and a valid command, the breaking-errors usually occur when a connection is cut while a slave is "awaiting x data bytes". To account for this, the first thing the master does on connect is to blindly blast out enough AT bytes to push the Arduino through "awaiting data" even in the worst-case-scenario. Crude, yet sufficient.
I realize my solution is pretty lo-fi, so I did a bit of surfing around and I found this post to be pretty comprehensive: Simple serial point-to-point communication protocol
Also, if you need a strategy for error-correction over error-detection/re-transmission (or over my strategy, which I guess is "error-brute-forcing"), you may want to check out the link to a technique called "Hamming," near the bottom of that thread - That one looked promising!
Good luck!
-Matt
New here, so a bit about myself first:
I am a fire alarm commissioning engineer by trade, but like to mess with electronics as a hobby.
my main area of interest is integration between various systems (which is one of the reasons I like doing fire alarms, as they interface with most systems in big buildings) and have recently started getting more involved with serial comms to interface systems, rather than boring relay contacts.
In my house, I have an 8X8 audio/video matrix switcher, this connects the stereo systems in all the rooms to each other so that i can patch any rooms audio to any of the other rooms in the house.
This switcher has an RS-232 serial port on the back, which I'm hoping I can interface to either a PI or an arduino, so that I can control it via a web interface.
After a while searching, I found the protocol for it online... but things haven't gone so smoothly after that unfortunately.
Currently I'm just using a usb-232 converter and a null modem cable, along with a program called 232 analyser on my laptop...
I can read data fine, and send data to the unit... but it keeps spitting back a 'framing error' message.
I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, please could someone advise? this is the first time I've really used serial so pointers would be cool.
One thing i did think is that the protocol specifies:
RS-232C STANDARD
START Bit 1
STOP Bit 1
DATA Bit 8
PARITY Bit EVEN
BAUD RATE 9600bps
CODE ASCII
TERMINATE
but my analyser program only lets me set the baud rate, data bits, parity, stop bit, and data format. not start bit. could that be my issue? and if so how do i get around it?
thanks so much in advance!
The format most commonly used for serial connections use one start bit, 8 data bits, no parity, and one stop bit.
I'm trying to determine the difference when I open serial port with hardware handshake and none handshake.
It seems that in both cases I have to control RTS/CTS signals (just tested it with one COM device).
So what the difference between opening serial port with hardware handshake and without handshaking?
From my previous understanding, when we work without handshaking, we don't care about RTS/CTS and DTR/DSR signals. Just send and receive data whenever we want. Was I wrong?
One more question. Can we work without handshaking in full duplex mode only?
As you probably know, the issue is "flow control". Like the Clash song "Should I stay or should I go?".
RTS/CTS is hardware control. XON/XOFF is software control. Otherwise, "just keep going".
This link might explain further:
http://www.lammertbies.nl/comm/info/RS-232_flow_control.html
I suspect that when you were asking about "handshaking" with respect to "duplex", perhaps you meant this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-232
In older versions of the specification, RS-232's use of the RTS and
CTS lines is asymmetric: The DTE asserts RTS to indicate a desire to
transmit to the DCE, and the DCE asserts CTS in response to grant
permission. This allows for half-duplex modems that disable their
transmitters when not required, and must transmit a synchronization
preamble to the receiver when they are re-enabled.
'Hope that helps!
The difference is more about whether the kernel will pay attention to the CTS/RTS lines when deciding whether to send more data or not. With hardware handshaking turned on, it will. With it set to none, it won't, even though the CTS/RTS lines may stay asserted, so that the peer will know it can send data.
I am designing software around an existing hardware product. I have full control of the communication protocol but I'm not sure how to facilitate device detection.
A device could have a range of possible configurations (i.e. baud rate, data bits, parity bits, stop bits) that must be detected at runtime. What is the easiest, most reliable way for the software to figure out what configuration it is using? Again, I have full control of the communication protocol so I can define any mechanism I wish.
Is this a full-duplex or half-duplex device? Can you control request-to-send and monitor clear-to-send on both ends of the serial line? Is the serial line point-to-point (like RS-232) or multi-drop (like RS-485)? It will make a (albeit small) difference if you are going to interfere with other already connected devices while negotiating with a newly connected one.
If you think of the handshake process like a modem negotiating a link layer protocol, it uses a standard set of messages to describe the type of communications it would like to have and waits for an "ack" from the other end. In your case I recommend having a "let's talk" standard message that your head end generates with the range of bit rates and waits for the ack from the device.
I also recommend reducing the number of configuration options for the device. Forget about variable data bits, parity bits, and stop bits. The serial communications world is no longer as unstable as it was back in the 70's. Just use 8 data bits, no parity, one stop bit and vary the bit rate. A CRC on the end of messages provides plenty of error-checking.