As far as I know, when a data is too long, the address of a data is written to a register. When it is not long for a register, the real value of the data can be written to a register. How can a register detect that the value in the register is whether a the value of a data or the address of a data? If it could not detect, it would process with the wrong value.
I have found a related question ( How is data, address and Instruction differentiated in Processor/Register/memory?). However the answers are not too satisfied. Are there more satisfied answers? (Probably, it will be too complicated )
Thanks.
This is what I want to learn. http://cs.oberlin.edu/~jdonalds/317/IntelEncoding.htm
Related
I am trying to disassemble a code from a old radio containing a 68xx (68hc12 like) microcontroller. The problem is, I dont have the access to the interrupt vector of the micro in the top of the ROM, so I don't know where start to look. I only have the code below the top. There is some suggestion of where or how can I find meaningful routines in the code data?
You can't really disassemble reliably without knowing where the reset vector points. What you can do, however, is try to narrow down the possible reset addresses by eliminating all those other addresses that cannot possibly be a starting point.
So, given that any address in the memory map that contains a valid opcode is a potential reset point, you need to either eliminate it, or keep it for further analysis.
For the 68HC11 case, you could try to guess somewhat the entry point by looking for LDS instructions with legitimate operand value (i.e., pointing at or near the top of available RAM -- if multiple RAM banks, then to any of them).
It may help a bit if you know the device's full memory map, i.e., if external memory is used, its mapping and possible mapped peripherals (e.g., LCD). Do you also know CONFIG register contents?
The LDS instruction is usually either the very first instruction, or close thereafter (so look back a few instructions when you feel you have finally singled out your reset address). The problem here is some data may, by chance, appear as LDS instructions so you could end up with multiple potentially valid entry points. Only one of them is valid, of course.
You can eliminate further by disassembling a few instructions starting from each of these LDS instructions until you either hit an illegal opcode (i.e. obviously not a valid code sequence but an accidental data arrangement that looks like opcodes), or you see a series of instructions that are commonly used in 68HC11 initialization. These involve (usually) initialization of any one or more of the registers BPROT, OPTION, SCI, INIT ($103D in most parts, but for some $3D), etc.
You could write a relatively small script (e.g., in Lua) to do the basic scanning of the memory map and produce a (hopefully small) set of potential reset points to be examined further with a true disassembler for hints like the ones I mentioned.
Now, once you have the reset vector figured out the job becomes somewhat easier but you still need to figure out where any interrupt handlers are located. For this your hint is an RTI instruction and whatever preceding code that normally should acknowledge the specific interrupt it handles.
Hope this helps.
My question is very easy (I think).
Let's say I want to read a register, where a result is stored by a sensor.
At which moment do I need to specify the register I want to read?
After the slave address as data? http://imgur.com/EhO6d6m
I don't think so. Because If I previously did a write operation in register 0x1234. And afterwards just do a read (without specifying anything). I will read data from register 0x1234.
Where/when do I need to specify the address of the new register I want to read?
If someone has an answer please let it be known.
Thank you
Generally, you have to specify the register you want to read from (if it's not already set) by using a write!
Issue
STA
SLA+W
REGISTER
rSTA
SLA+R
DATA
STO
That's the most common format. Other less common variants include:
STA
SLA+W
READ_REGISTER_ADDRESS
REGISTER
rSTA
SLA+R
DATA
STO
I.e. some devices only let you manipulate a pointer to the next data register that is read.
Some devices don't have multiple registers, so you always read from the same register.
I read in golang website that uintptr stores the uninterpreted bits of a pointer value, the kind of anwsers that i found on web were very confusing.Can someone please explaing this to me in simple words .
Short answer: it's used when you need to use an address as if it's a number.
Go is a garbage-collected language. Go always knows exactly, when a thing is a pointer, and when it's just a value. Go needs this knowledge to look for old unused values that it can free. Pointers are also special in Go in that you can't just add a number to a pointer like you would do in C.
But sometimes, when you work with embedded systems or some kind of low-level libraries where you need to add or subtract from an address, you need to tell Go that it shouldn't check this pointer because it's not pointing to anything useful at the moment. You just want to use this address as if it was a number and add/subtract another number to it.
This is where you would use uintptr. This type can hold any pointer value (any address), and when you put an address into it, Go doesn't see it as a pointer, so you can do whatever you want with it.
The Ethernet II frame format does not contain a length field, and I'd like to understand how the end of a frame can be detected without it.
Unfortunately, I have no idea of physics, but the following sounds reasonable to me: we assume that Layer 1 (Physical Layer) provides us with a way of transmitting raw bits in such a way that it is possible to distinguish between the situation where bits are being sent and the situation where nothing is sent (if digital data was coded into analog signals via phase modulation, this would be true, for example - but I don't know if this is really what's done). In this case, an ethernet card could simply wait until a certain time intervall occurs where no more bits are being transmitted, and then decide that the frame transmission has to be finished.
Is this really what's happening?
If yes: where can I find these things, and what are common values for the length of "certain time intervall"? Why does IEEE 802.3 have a length field?
If not: how is it done instead?
Thank you for your help!
Hanno
Your assumption is right. The length field inside the frame is not needed for layer1.
Layer1 uses other means to detect the end of a frame which vary depending on the type of physical layer.
with 10Base-T a frame is followed by a TP_IDL waveform. The lack of further Manchester coded data bits can be detected.
with 100Base-T a frame is ended with an End of Stream Delimiter bit pattern that may not occur in payload data (because of its 4B/5B encoding).
A rough description you can find e.g. here:
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/AppNotes/01120a.pdf "Ethernet Theory of Operation"
I'm designing a game server and I have never done anything like this before. I was just wondering what a good structure for a packet would be data-wise? I am using TCP if it matters. Here's an example, and what I was considering using as of now:
(each value in brackets is a byte)
[Packet length][Action ID][Number of Parameters]
[Parameter 1 data length as int][Parameter 1 data type][Parameter 1 data (multi byte)]
[Parameter 2 data length as int][Parameter 2 data type][Parameter 2 data (multi byte)]
[Parameter n data length as int][Parameter n data type][Parameter n data (multi byte)]
Like I said, I really have never done anything like this before so what I have above could be complete bull, which is why I'm asking ;). Also, is passing the total packet length even necessary?
Passing the total packet length is a good idea. It might cost two more bytes, but you can peek and wait for the socket to have a full packet ready to sip before receiving. That makes code easier.
Overall, I agree with brazzy, a language supplied serialization mechanism is preferrable over any self-made.
Other than that (I think you are using a C-ish language without serialization), I would put the packet ID as the first data on the packet data structure. IMHO that's some sort of convention because the first data member of a struct is always at position 0 and any struct can be downcast to that, identifying otherwise anonymous data.
Your compiler may or may not produce packed structures, but that way you can allocate a buffer, read the packet in and then either cast the structure depending on the first data member. If you are out of luck and it does not produce packed structures, be sure to have a serialization method for each struct that will construct from the (obviously non-destination) memory.
Endiannes is a factor, particularly on C-like languages. Be sure to make clear that packets are of the same endianness always or that you can identify a different endian based on a signature or something. An odd thing that's very cool: C# and .NET seems to always hold data in little-endian convention when you access them using like discussed in this post here. Found that out when porting such an application to Mono on a SUN. Cool, but if you have that setup you should use the serialization means of C# anyways.
Other than that, your setup looks very okay!
Start by considering a much simpler basic wrapper: Tag, Length, Value (TLV). Your basic packet will look then like this:
[Tag] [Length] [Value]
Tag is a packet identifier (like your action ID).
Length is the packet length. You may need this to tell whether you have the full packet. It will also let you figure out how long the value portion is.
Value contains the actual data. The format of this can be anything.
In your case above, the value data contains a further series of TLV structures (parameter type, length, value). You don't actually need to send the number of parameters, as you can work it from the data length and walking the data.
As others have said, I would put the packet ID (Tag) first. Unless you have cross-platform concerns, I would consider wrapping your application's serialised object in a TLV and sending it across the wire like that. If you make a mistake or want to change later, you can always create a new tag with a different structure.
See Wikipedia for more details on TLV.
To avoid reinventing the wheel, any serialization protocol will work for on the wire data (e.g. XML, JSON), and you might consider looking at BEEP for the basic protocol framework.
BEEP is summed up well in its FAQ document as 'kind of a "best hits" album of the tricks used by experienced application protocol designers since the early 80's.'
There's no reason to make something so complicated like that. I see that you have an action ID, so I suppose there would be a fixed number of actions.
For each action, you would define a data structure, and then you would put each one of those values in the structure. To send it over the wire, you just allocate sum(sizeof(struct.i)) bytes for each element in your structure. So your packet would look like this:
[action ID][item 1 (sizeof(item 1 bytes)][item 1 (sizeof(item 2 bytes)]...[item n (sizeof(item n bytes)]
The idea is, you already know the size and type of each variable on each side of the connection is, so you don't need to send that information.
For strings, you can just throw 'em in in a null terminated form, and then when you 'know' to look for a string based on your packet type, start reading and looking for a null.
--
Another option would be to use '\r\n' to delineate your variables. That would require some overhead, and you would have to use text, rather then binary values for numbers. But that way you could just use readline to read each variable. Your packets would look like this
[action ID]
[item 1 (as text)]
...
[item n (as text)]
--
Finally, simply serializing objects and passing them down the wire is a good way to do this too, with the least amount of code to write. Remember that you don't want to prematurely optimize, and that includes network traffic as well. If it turns out you need to squeeze out a little bit more performance later on you can go back and figure out a more efficient mechanism.
And check out google's protocol buffers, which are supposedly an extreemly fast way to serialize data in a platform-neutral way, kind of like a binary XML, but without nested elements. There's also JSON, which is another platform neutral encoding. Using protocol buffers or JSON would mean you wouldn't have to worry about how to specifically encode the messages.
Do you want the server to support multiple clients written in different languages? If not, it's probably not necessary to specify the structure exactly; instead use whatever facility for serializing data your language offers, simply to reduce the potential for errors.
If you do need the structure to be portable, the above looks OK, though you should specify stuff like endianness and text encoding as well in that case.