Archive for the ‘General C issues’ Category

Configuring hardware – part 3

Wednesday, January 26th, 2011 Nigel Jones

This is the final part in a series on configuring the hardware peripherals in a microcontroller. In the first part I talked about how to set / clear bits in a configuration register, and in the second part I talked about putting together the basic framework for the driver. When I finished part 2, we had got as far as configuring all the bits in the open function. It’s at this point that things get interesting. In my experience the majority of driver problems fall into three areas:

  1. Failing to place the peripheral into the correct mode.
  2. Getting the clocking wrong.
  3. Mishandling interrupts.

I think most people tend to focus on the first item. Personally I have learned that it’s usually better to tackle the above problems in the reverse order.

Mishandling interrupts

Almost all peripheral drivers need interrupt handlers, and these are often the source of many problems.  If you have followed my advice, then at this stage you should have a skeleton interrupt handler for every possible interrupt vector that the peripheral uses.  You should also have an open and close function. A smart thing to do at this stage is to download your code to your debug environment. I then place a break-point on every interrupt handler and then I call  the open function. If the open function merely configures the peripheral, yet does not enable it, then presumably no interrupts should occur. If they do, then you need to find out why and fix the problem.

At this point I now add just enough code to each interrupt handler such that it will clear the source of the interrupt and generate the requisite interrupt acknowledge. Sometimes this is done for you in hardware. In other cases you have to write a surprising amount of code to get the job done. I strongly recommend that you take your time over this stage as getting an interrupt acknowledge wrong can cause you endless problems.

The next stage is to write the enable function, download the code and open and enable the peripheral. This time you need to check that you do get the expected interrupts (e.g. a timer overflow interrupt) and that you acknowledge them correctly. Just as importantly you also need to check that you don’t get an unexpected interrupt (e.g. a timer match interrupt). On the assumption that all is well, then you can be reasonably confident that  there are no egregious errors in your setup of interrupts. At this point you will probably have to further flesh out the interrupt handlers in order to give the driver some limited functionality. Although I’m sure you’ll be tempted to get on with the problem at hand, I recommend that you don’t do this, but rather write code to help tackle the next problem – namely that of clocking verification.

Clocking

Most peripherals use a clock source internal to the microprocessor. Now modern processors have multiple clock domains, PLL based frequency multipliers, and of course multi-level pre-scalars. As a result it can be a real nightmare trying to get the correct frequency to a peripheral. Even worse it is remarkably easy to get the approximately correct frequency to a peripheral. This issue can be a real problem with asynchronous communications links where a 1% error in frequency may be OK with one host and fail with another. As a result I now make it a rule to always try and verify that I am indeed clocking a peripheral with the correct frequency. To do this, there is no substitute for breaking out the oscilloscope or logic analyzer and measuring something. For timers one can normally output the signal on a port pin (even if this is just for verification purposes). For communications links one can simply set up the port to constantly transmit a fixed pattern. For devices such as A2D converters I usually have to resort to toggling  a port pin at the start and end of conversion. Regardless of the peripheral, it’s nearly always worth taking the time to write some code to help you verify that the peripheral is indeed being clocked at the correct frequency.

When you are doing this, there are a couple of things to watch out for:

  1. If your processor has an EMI reduction mode, then consider turning it off while performing clocking measurements. The reason for this is that ‘EMI reduction’ is actually achieved by dithering (quasi randomly varying) the clock frequency. Clearly a randomly varying clock isn’t conducive to accurate frequency measurements.
  2. Make sure that your system is indeed being clocked by the correct source. I mention this because some debuggers can provide the clock to the target.

Finally, if you find that you have an occasional problem with a peripheral, then checking that the clocking is precise is always a good place to start.

Mode

At this stage you have done the following:

  1. Considered every bit in every register in your open function.
  2. Verified that you have interrupts set up correctly.
  3. Written the enable function and at least part of the interrupt handler(s).
  4. Verified that you have the correct frequency clocks going to the peripheral.

You should now complete writing the driver. This is where you write the bulk of the application specific code. Clearly this part is highly application specific. Notwithstanding this, I can offer one piece of advice. Probably the single biggest mistake that I have made over the years is to assume that because the driver ‘works’ that it must be correct. I will give you a simple example to demonstrate what I mean.

It’s well known that the popular SPI port found on many devices can operate in one of four modes (often imaginatively called Mode0, Mode1, Mode2 & Mode3). These modes differ based on the phase relationship of the clock and data lines and whether the data are valid on the rising or falling edge of the clock. Thus it’s necessary to study the data sheet of the SPI peripheral to find out its required mode. Let’s assume that after studying the data sheet you conclude that Mode2 operation is called for – and you implement the code and it works. If you then walk away from the code then I humbly suggest you are asking for it. The reason is that it’s possible that a peripheral will ‘work’ in Mode 2, even though it should be operated in Mode 3. The peripheral ‘works’ in Mode 2 even though you are right on the edge of violating the various required setup and hold times. A different temperature or a different chip lot and your code will fall over. It’s for this reason that I strongly recommend that you break out the logic analyzer and carefully compare the signals to what is specified in the data sheet. There is nothing quite like comparing waveforms to what is in the data sheet to give you a warm fuzzy feeling that the driver really is doing its job correctly.

Final Thoughts

Driver writing is hard. Engineers that can take on this task and write clean, fast and correct drivers in a timely manner are immensely valuable to organizations. Thus even if you cringe at the thought of having to write a device driver, you might want to put the effort into learning how to do it – your career will thank you!

Configuring hardware – part 2.

Wednesday, December 15th, 2010 Nigel Jones

This is the second in a series on configuring the hardware peripherals in a microcontroller. In the first part I talked about how to set / clear bits in a configuration register.  Now while setting bits is an essential part of the problem, it is by no means the most difficult task. Instead the real problem is this. You need to configure the peripheral but on examining the data sheet you discover that the peripheral has twenty registers, can operate in a huge number of modes and has multiple interrupt sources. To compound the difficulty, you may not fully understand the task the peripheral performs – and the data sheet appear to have been written by someone who has clearly never written a device driver in their life. If this sounds a lot like what you have experienced, then read on!

When I first started working in embedded systems, I used to dread having to write a device driver. I knew I was in for days, if not weeks of anguish trying to make the stupid thing work. Today I can usually get a peripheral to do what I want with almost no heartache – and in a fraction of the time it used to take me. I do this by following a standard approach that helps minimize various problems that seem to crop up all the time in device drivers. These problems are as follows:

  1. Setting the wrong bits in a register
  2. Failing to configure a register at all.
  3. Setting the correct configuration bits – but in the wrong temporal order.
  4. Interrupts incorrectly handled.

To help minimize these types of problems, this is what I do.

Step 0 – Document *what* the driver is supposed to do

This is a crucial step. If you can’t write in plain English (or French etc) what the driver is supposed to do then you stand no chance of making it work correctly.  This is a remarkably difficult thing to do. If you find that you can’t succinctly and unambiguously describe the driver’s functionality then attempting to write code is futile. I typically put this explanation in the module header block where future readers of the code can see it. An explanation may look something like this.

This is a serial port driver. It is intended to be used on an RS232 line at 38400 baud, 8 data bits, no parity, one stop bit. The driver supports CTS / RTS handshaking. It does not support Xon / Xoff handshaking.

Characters to be transmitted are buffered and sent out under interrupt. If the transmit buffer fills up then incoming characters are dropped.

Characters are received under interrupt and placed in a buffer. When the receive buffer is almost full, the CTS line is asserted. Once the receive buffer has dropped below the low threshold, CTS is negated. If the host ignores the CTS line and continues to transmit then characters received after the receive buffer is full are discarded.

As it stands, this description is incomplete; for example it doesn’t say what happens if a receiver overrun is detected. However you should get the idea.

Incidentally I can’t stress the importance of this step enough. This was the single biggest breakthrough I made in improving my driver writing. This is also the step that I see missing from almost all driver code.

Step 1 – Create standard function outlines

Nearly all drivers need the following functions:

  1. Open function. This function does the bulk of the peripheral configuration, but typically does not activate (enable) the peripheral.
  2. Close function. This is the opposite of the open function in that it returns a peripheral to its initial (usually reset) condition. Even if your application would never expect to close a peripheral it is often useful to write this function as it can deepen your understanding of the peripheral’s functionality.
  3. Start function. This function typically activates the peripheral. For peripherals such as timers, the start function is aptly and accurately named. For more complex peripherals, the start function may be more of an enable function. For example a CAN controller’s start function may start the CAN controller listening for packets.
  4. Stop function. This is the opposite of the start function. Its job is to stop the peripheral from running, while leaving it configured.
  5. Update function(s). These function(s) are highly application specific. For example an ADC peripheral may not need an update function. A PWM channel’s update function would be used to update the PWM depth. A UART’s update function would be the transmit function. In some cases you may need multiple update functions.
  6. Interrupt handler(s). Most peripheral’s need at least one interrupt handler. Even if you aren’t planning on using an interrupt source, I strongly recommend you put together a function outline for it. The reason will become clear!

At this stage, your driver looks something like this:

/*
 Detailed description of what the driver does goes here
*/

void driver_Open(void)
{
}

void driver_Close(void)
{
}

void driver_Start(void)
{
}

void driver_Stop(void)
{
}

void driver_Update(void)
{
}

__interrupt void driver_Interrupt1(void)
{
}

__interrupt void driver_Interrupt2(void)
{
}

Step 2 – Set up power, clocks, port pins

In most modern processors, a peripheral does not exist in isolation. Many times peripherals need to be powered up, clocks need to routed to the peripheral and port pins need to be configured. This step is separate from the configuration of the peripheral. Furthermore documentation on these requirements is often located in non-obvious places – and thus this step is often overlooked. This is an area where I must give a thumbs-up to NXP. At the start of each of their peripherals is a short clear write up documenting the ancillary registers that need to be configured for the peripheral to be used. An example is shown below:

Basic Configuration Steps for the SSP

Personally, I usually place the configuration of these registers in a central location which is thus outside the driver. However there is also a case for placing the configuration of these registers in the driver open function. I will address why I do it this way in a separate blog post.

Step 3 – Add all the peripheral registers to the open function

This step is crucial. In my experience a large number of driver problems come about because a register hasn’t been configured. The surest way to kill this potential problem is to open up the data sheet at the register list for the peripheral and simply add all the registers to the open function. For example, here is the register list for the SSP controller on an NXP ARM processor:

Ten registers are listed.  Even though one register is listed as read only, I still add it to the driver_Open function as I may need to read it in order to clear status flags. Thus my open function now becomes this:

void driver_Open(void)
{
 SSP0CR0 = 0;
 SSP0CR1 = 0;
 SSP0DR = 0;
 SSP0SR;            /* Status register - read and discard */
 SSP0CPSR = 0;
 SSP0IMSC = 0;
 SSP0RIS = 0;
 SSP0MIS = 0;
 SSP0ICR = 0;
 SSP0DMACR = 0;
}

At this stage all I have done is ensure that my code is at least aware of the requisite registers.

Step 4 – Arrange the registers in the correct order

For many peripherals, it is important that registers be configured in a specific order. In some cases a register must be partially configured, then other registers must be configured, and then the initial register must be completely configured. There is no way around this, other than to read the data sheet to determine if this ordering exists. I should note that the order that registers appear in the data sheet is rarely the order in which they should be configured. In my example, I will assume that the registers are correctly ordered.

Step 5 – Write the close function

While manufacturer’s often put a lot of effort into telling you how to configure a peripheral, it’s rare to see information on how to shut a peripheral down. In the absence of this information, I have found that a good starting point is to simply take the register list from the open function and reverse it. Thus the first pass close function looks like this:

void driver_Close(void)
{
 SSP0DMACR = 0;
 SSP0ICR = 0;
 SSP0MIS = 0;
 SSP0RIS = 0;
 SSP0IMSC = 0;
 SSP0CPSR = 0;
 SSP0DR = 0;
 SSP0CR1 = 0;    
 SSP0CR0 = 0;
}

Step 6 – Configure the bits in the open function

This is the step where you have to set and clear the bits in the registers. If you use the technique that I espoused in part 1 of this series, then your open function will now explicitly consider every bit in every register.  An example of a partially completed open function is shown below:

void driver_Open(void)
{
 SSP1CR0 = ((4 - 1) << 0) |    /* DSS = 4 bit transfer (min value allowed) */
            (0U << 4) |        /* SPI format */
            (1U << 6) |        /* CPOL = 1 => Clock idles high */
            (1U << 7) |        /* CPHA = 1 => Output data valid on rising edge */
            (5U << 8);         /* SCR = 5 to give a division by 6 */

 SSP1CR1 =  (0U << 0) |        /* LPM = 0 ==> no loopback mode */
            (1U << 1) |        /* SSE = 1 ==> SSP1 is enabled */
            (0U << 2) |        /* MS = 0 ==> Master mode */
            (0U << 3);         /* SOD = 0 (don't care as we are in master mode */

 SSP0DR = 0;
 SSP0SR;            /* Status register - read and discard */
 SSP0CPSR = 0;
 SSP0IMSC = 0;
 SSP0RIS = 0;
 SSP0MIS = 0;
 SSP0ICR = 0;
 SSP0DMACR = 0;
}

Clearly this is the toughest part of the exercise. However at least if you have followed these steps, then you are guaranteed not to have made an error of omission.

This blog posting has got long enough. In the next part of this series, I will address common misconfiguration issues, interrupts etc.

A volatile tempest

Monday, September 27th, 2010 Nigel Jones

Regular readers will know that I often comment on the use of volatile in embedded systems. As a result I am occasionally contacted about my opinion on whether a compiler is generating correct code – particularly when hardware is being accessed. Well I was contacted last week by Ratish Punoose who had a classic problem in that his code compiled okay on GCC but not on IAR. He had contacted IAR, who in turn basically said the compiler is correct – and here is the explanation. Ratish turned to me and John Regehr for our opinions. Well John and I came to similar opinions – namely:

  1. Ratish’s code was a bit weird, but not dramatically so.
  2. The explanation from IAR made no sense.
  3. It did indeed appear to be a compiler bug.

Ratish then posted his issue to the Msp430 forum on Yahoo. You can read his post and the responses here.

I’m sure many of you are at this point thinking that IAR is in for another round of bashing from me. Well you’d be wrong. One of the first responders to Ratish’s post was Paul Curtis of Rowley compilers. Paul gives an admirable explanation as to why Ratish’s code is wrong (and by extension so am I). Now I’m sure that IAR and Rowley are fierce competitors, and so Paul is also to be commended for leaping to the defense of IAR.

Furthermore, later in the thread Anders Lindgren of IAR chimes in and adds his detailed and compelling explanation.

Having read the posts from Paul and Anders I think they are right and I’m wrong. So thanks Gentlemen for:

  1. Setting me straight
  2. Proving that in the wonderful world of volatile accesses, there is always something more to learn.

I think there are several other lessons to be learned from this episode. However I think I’ll save them for another post.

#include “includes.h”

Thursday, September 9th, 2010 Nigel Jones

I am sure that the title of this blog posting is familiar to most of the readers of this blog, in that you have opened up a C source file and found a single #include statement that references a file that is typically called ‘includes.h’. On opening ‘includes.h’ one invariably finds an enormous list of other header files. Furthermore, as you go through other source files in the project, you will find that they all use ‘includes.h’. I suspect that by this point, the readers of this blog are divided into camps, namely:

  1. Either: So what, I do it all the time because it makes my life a lot easier.
  2. Or: I want to scream whenever I see this done.

I’m one of the screamers – and this is my rationale.

Back in the dark ages when one had to compile on computers with extremely limited resources, the compilation time of a module was a major issue. One of the things that significantly affected compile time was the number and the size of the header files that a module opened. As a result, most of us took steps to ensure that we only included the header files that were needed. However, as processor speeds increased and compilers started using pre-compiled header files, this became less of an issue, such that today I seriously doubt if you’d notice much difference in compilation times regardless of the number of header files that are included. I don’t know but I suspect that this was the enabler that caused people to start using ‘includes.h’.

So if compilation time is no longer an issue, what’s the big deal? After all we have all had the hassle of compiling a file only to be told that we are missing a prototype or a data type. At which point we have to hunt down the requisite header file, include it and recompile. If you do this half a dozen times in a new module, then it takes you say 15 minutes before everything is OK – and who has 15 minutes to waste on such irritating details? Well, in my opinion it’s time well spent. Here’s my case:

Coupling Indication

The number of header files a module needs to use is a crude but effective indicator of coupling. A module that needs to include almost no header files is clearly a module that is extremely self contained. That is it isn’t relying upon the outside world. Modules like this are typically easier to maintain and also more immune from changes made elsewhere in the system. In short I like modules that don’t have to include a lot of header files. Indeed when I have finished writing a module, I take a look at its include list. If the list is long then it really makes me wonder whether I should be breaking the module apart in some way so as to reduce the degree of coupling between it and the outside world.

Maintenance – understanding coupling

This is related to the first point. If I need to do some maintenance on a module, then a quick look at the include list can tell me how this module interacts with the rest of the code. This can be extremely useful if one is trying to understand how a program is put together.

Maintenance – understanding functionality

If I look at the include list and I see ‘math.h’, then I know that the module is using transcendental functions, which in turn implies complex floating point operations, which in turn implies potentially long execution times. In a similar manner, if it includes the header for the hardware interrupt handler, then I know I’m dealing with something related to the chip. I can get all this sort of information in a two second scan of the include list.

Documentation

If you use an automated documentation tool such as Doxygen, then only including the header files that are needed by a module ensures that Doxygen generates a meaningful documentation set for you, rather than including hyperlinks to useless files.

Not getting what you want

I have left what is probably the biggest problem to last. By including an enormous number of header files you lay yourself wide open to problems like this:

Header1.h

#define FALSE 0
#define TRUE  !FALSE

Header17.h

#ifndef FALSE
#define FALSE 0UL
#define TRUE  1UL
#endif

Header26.h

#pragma(IGNORE_REDEFINITION_OF_MACROS)
#define FALSE NULL
#define TRUE !FALSE
#pragma(ERROR_ON_REDEFINITION_OF_MACROS)

Trust me when I tell you I have seen this done! In other words the more files you include, the more likely it is that the macro that you are blithely using does not in fact have the value you think it does. Time to debug problems such as these – a lot longer than 15 minutes!

Remedial Action

On the off chance that I have convinced an ‘includes.h’ fan of the error of their ways, it would be remiss of me to not tell you how to quickly find out just the header files needed by a module.

  1. Paste the include list of includes.h into the module.
  2. Delete the entry for includes.h
  3. Compile the code to make sure you haven’t broken anything.
  4. Lint the file. Lint will tell you all the header files that aren’t being used.
  5. Delete the unnecessary include statements.
  6. Repeat from step 3 until Lint is happy.

Of course the chances are that if you use ‘includes.h’ you aren’t using Lint. If you do start using Lint then it will do a lot more for you than just telling you about unnecessary includes.

A foreign perspective on variable names

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010 Nigel Jones

This blog is read by people from all over the world. I make this point not to brag, but rather to demonstrate that designing embedded systems is a truly global effort. Remarkably, despite this, it appears that a huge amount of embedded code is commented in English and / or uses English nomenclature for variable and function names. This is of course wonderful for those of us that are native English speakers. However I’ve often thought that designing embedded systems is hard enough without having the additional burden of working in a foreign language.

Anyway, I mention this as preamble because last week I found myself in a rather unusual situation for me. Namely I was handed a fairly sophisticated driver which was written by a native German speaker. Now one of the things I have always liked about the Germans is that they don’t kowtow to the altar of the English language – and so I found myself looking at code that was commented entirely in German and that used almost exclusively German for function and variable names. I was thus faced with trying to understand it – which with my limited knowledge of German was not at all easy.

Anyway, as I went through the code I found myself entering variable names into an online German-English dictionary – with very limited success. Now while part of the problem was undoubtedly the technical nature of the words, I don’t have the slightest doubt that the real problem was that the author was using abbreviations / slang / jargon as well as concatenating words (e.g. (in English) bufferindex) such that the online dictionaries were flummoxed. The net result was that I had a much harder time interpreting the code than would have been the case if I had understood the variable names. Needless to say this got me thinking. How many times has a non-native English speaker looked at some of my code and entered variable names into a dictionary only to be told that there is no such word? If you subscribe to the belief that you write code for other people to read then it follows that one should take the spoken language barrier into consideration. If one does, then certain ‘rules’ become apparent:

  1. Don’t abbreviate unless you have to. While BufrWrtLmt may be understandable to native English speakers, it must be really hard to comprehend for others.
  2. In concatenating words, make the word boundary clear either via underscore or via camel-case. Thus buffer_index or bufferIndex.
  3. Pay attention to your spelling. A simple spelling mistake such as writing temprature when you meant temperature can completely stymie someone using a dictionary. While I don’t know of a tool that spell checks variable names, there are several tools available for spell checking comments.

As a passing observation, not only will these changes make your code easier to comprehend for non-native English speakers, it will also do wonders for those of us that purport to speak English as our native tongue!