Is it possible to access external hardware without using a driver, i.e. not having the driver abstraction layer in between program and external device?
Can you use a device by implementing your own driver-like controlling/handling directly in your program code?
I'm trying to understand a program that implements a Modbus protocol and some very specific Modbus configurations. Now I don't know how exactly it communicates with the Modbus devices.
It looks to me that this is very similar to what a driver does.
But can it even communicate DIRECTLY with the device without having a driver installed?
Yes, there are several micro-kernel OS's that always configure this way -- drivers are entirely implemented outside of the kernel.
The first thing you likely need is to get access to the device's registers; typically performed with mmap(), you may need to dig around a bit to find the right settings for cacheability, etc...
Second problem is interrupts. Unless you are running something like QNX, you won't have a way to have interrupts signal your program directly. You will probably have to turn them off and poll the device periodically.
If you are using linux and need io ports (inb, outb, etc...) man ioperm for more information.
Many STM32 chipsets support 1 or 2 channel CAN PIN Outs.
Is there a CAN bus library for STM32 to direct connect with a CAN transceiver such as MCP2551? But it does not matter what the CAN transceiver is.
A CAN transceiver is just a high speed step down converter. (on a basic level)
CAN protocol works in a variant of voltage ranges. MCP2551 is a set CAN transceiver suitable for 12V and 24V systems. With added features to help with the physical layer like externally-controlled slope for reduced RFI emissions, detection of ground fault, voltage brown-out protection, etc.
It has no dependency on the CAN logic. It is just to help you with the bare physical layer.
To answer your question:
As RishabhHardas recommended, use the HAL library provided by STM32 through CubeMx.
Using CubeMx
This is a software provided by ST-Micro to help you setup the boilerplate code for any peripheral application.
You can also check out the examples projects provided by STM in the Cube. This will give you a kick-start in understanding CAN on STM32
STM32Cube_FW_F4_V1.9.0\Projects\STM324xG_EVAL\Examples\CAN\CAN_Networking
After setting it up, you'll be able to call HAL_CAN_Transmit() and HAL_CAN_Receive() by including the header.
Check out this discussion on STM32-Community.
For software, look for the CANtact open source project on Github. It is an implementation for the STM32F042. I had to adapt the project to build it under Atollic but it was not too hard and it works. It provides a SLCAN type of interface over a virtual COM port over USB, which is very fast and convenient.
There is also CAN code for the STM32F103 (Bluepill) (Google "lawicel-slcan") but that chip is not as convenient because you cannot use both CAN and USB at the same time (they share RAM buffers) so if you want CAN, you will not have USB, and routing the CAN messages over a UART will severely limit the bandwidth. That may be OK if your entire application runs on the STM32.
My dad wants me to make kind of a smart home.
I would like to interface with KNX (a home automation protocol) using the GPIO on a Raspberry Pi 3. Ideally, I would like to build a web interface for it, but I don't have a clue how to interface with KNX in the first place.
Any suggestions?
It wont make sense for you to interpret and understand the KNX bus communication protocol directly. There is a massive specification behind the KNX bus which deals with so many problems from device addresses to collision detection. It would take years to master it and unless you develop KNX devices you really should not spend your time on it. You will be better off by doing the following:
Buy a KNX/IP gateway/interface such as https://www.mdt.de/en/products/product-detail/system-devices/system-devices/ip-interface.html
Understand that KNX bus traffic can be routed/tunneled to your home LAN/WIFI
Play around with one of the KNX libraries on GitHub. For example for C#: https://github.com/search?l=C%23&q=knx&type=Repositories&utf8=%E2%9C%93
If you want, have a look at my experimental .NET Core project which starts a radio streaming process when someone touches a button (in the bathroom in my case). It runs on any operation system (so Raspberry and Linux are fine) and you can find it here: https://github.com/ThomasZeman/KnxNetCore
check this website : http://michlstechblog.info/blog/raspberry-pi-eibknx-ip-gateway-and-router-with-knxd/ that might help. also there are special knx 2 ip devices sold by electronic stores
You can't connect the KNX bus to anything on the pi. The KNX bus has its own electrical specs, and you need specialized hardware to connect to it.
Such hardware is available, but probably a KNXnet/IP device (such as the Siemens N148) is a better option.
I see two options for you:
A) use an IP interface (e.g. the ones from MDT) and access the IP interface from your raspberryPi (e.g. with http://calimero-project.github.io/)
B) use a TPUART controller, which makes KNX TP telegrams accessible (r/w) to UART - see http://www.konnekting.de/konnekting-lernen/l1-knx-mit-arduino/
I want to build a microcontroller-based CAN node card that has interfaces like UART, SPI and I²C, to which connect different peripherals and interfaces, like say a EIA-485 counter or a SPI digital I/O expander. I'd like to define a profile for the card that's flexible enough to adapt to any possible configuration and include any device that can be connected to such node card. Since CANopen profiles seem to be pretty rigid, I researched CANopen virtual devices but that seems not the answer either.
Is there a standard for such functionality or I'm sailing unknown waters?
You are sailing unknown waters unless you consider a CANopen bootloader a possible solution. There is no existing device profile that fits your criteria. CANopen is remarkably flexible but arbitrary extensibility is beyond it.
You could export the registers of your microcontroller 1:1 through the object dictionary and issue interrupts through PDOs. It would certainly be a fun exercise if just a bit impractical.
From the CAN in Automation website:
CANopen generic I/O modules are standardized in the CiA 401 device
profile specification. The profile supports a granularity of 1-, 8-,
16-, and 32-bit for digital I/Os and a resolution of 1-, 2-, and
4-byte for analog I/Os.
However, it may be easier to implement a custom device, based on the general CiA 301 CANopen application layer and communication profile standard. You could implement a set of general purpose IOCTL functions using Manucturer objects (2000h to 5FFFh) and possibly use SDO Block Transfer to 'stream' data to specific OD objects representing connected device end points.
You will need to consider that, even with a bitrate of 1 Mbps at the physical layer, the CANopen protocol is never going to be able to keep up with a USB2 HS device when it comes to streaming data! Also bear in mind that if you use PDOs for 'real-time' exchange of OD values there will be a significant lag and that the time quantum for PDO exchange is in the order of 25 ms or greater.
The final consideration is what CANopen master are you going to use? If the product is to be commercially available then you will need to specify and document your EDS very carefully (maybe even providing an OPC or similar API).
While understanding each by itself (or maybe not), it looks like I'm far from understanding the practical differences between the two.
Per my understanding, a BSP is a package of drivers and configuration settings that allows a kernel image to boot up a board (and is part of it).
The individual device driver, operates on a specific component (hardware), interfacing on one side with the core kernel and on the other side with the device itself.
Looking at the Linux kernel, it is unclear to me where the BSP role starts and the device driver role ends. Specifically, I am used to see one BSP per board per image, however, the generic Linux kernel may be loaded on any architecture family with the same image (it is clear that for different families there are different images: x86, amd64, arm, etc.), where the specific board and peripherals drivers are loaded per need from the initrd.
Is there a BSP for the common Linux kernel distributions? Or is BSP relevant just for special cases boards?
Is this behavior similar on other kernels? VxWorks?
And the last one, is it common to merge different BSP/s in order to generate a single image that will fit different boards?
I see the relationship between BSPs and devices drivers as "has-a". Board support packages include device drivers.
The differences between BSPs & kernels isn't easy to distinguish. A kernel translates instructions to the hardware. Kernels are often written to particular families of hardware, so they're not as portable or generic as they seem. It amounts to different permutations of the code for each architecture family.
The BSP acts as sort of the inverse: it provides the tools & instructions to work with that board's specific set of hardware. In specific, controlled situations, the kernel could do this work. But the BSP enables any compatible kernel/OS/application stack to use that board, by following its configuration instructions.
If you just need to access CPU cycles & memory, maybe a few protocols (USB, Ethernet, and a couple of video types), a kernel with wide architecture support is fantastic, and there was a time when the breadth of that hardware abstraction was penultimately valued. But now, consider that the board may have a suite of sensors (accelerometer, magnetometer, gyroscope, light, proximity, atmospheric pressure, etc), telephony, there may be multiple CPUs, multiple GPUs, and so on. A kernel can be written to provide VGA, DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort, and several permutations of CPU/GPU combinations, if/when someone uses those particular hardware packages, but it's not practical to write support for all theoretical contexts, compared to utilizing a BSP that's built for a specific board. And even then, that would be for one kernel; the board is capable of supporting Linux, Windows, Android, Symbian, whatever.
That's why efforts like Yocto exist, to further decouple kernel and hardware. BSPs make hardware sets extensible beyond a kernel, OS, and application stack or two, while kernels make a particular OS or application stack portable over multiple hardware architectures.
Based on my experience, BSP is a much larger scope. It includes bootloader, rootfs, kernel, drivers, etc., which means having a BSP makes your board capable of booting itself up. Drivers make devices working and are just a part of BSP.
Drivers is not equal to BSP.
Today things are modular to increase reusability, and software development for embedded systems normally breaks down into three layers.
Kernel (which contain task handling, scheduling, and memory management)
Stack (which is the upper layer on the device drivers and provides protocol implementations for I²C, SPI, Ethernet, SDIO, serial, file system, networking, etc.)
BSP = Device drivers (which provide access to any controller's registers on hardware like registers of I²C, SDIO, SPI, Ethernet MAC address, UART (serial) and interrupt handling (ISR).
Board support package (device driver) is a software layer which changes with every board, keeping the other two software layers unchanged.
There is a conceptual link between board support packages and a HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) in the sense that the device drivers / kernel modules perform the hardware abstraction and the board support package provides an interface to the device drivers or is the hardware abstraction layer itself.
So basically a BSP has a functionality similar to the BIOS in the DOS era:
Additionally the BSP is supposed to perform the following operations
Initialize the processor
Initialize the bus
Initialize the interrupt controller
Initialize the clock
Initialize the RAM settings
Configure the segments
Load and run bootloader from flash
From: Board support package (Wikipedia)
The BIOS in modern PCs initializes and tests the system hardware
components, and loads a boot loader from a mass memory device which
then initializes an operating system. In the era of DOS, the BIOS
provided a hardware abstraction layer for the keyboard, display, and
other input/output (I/O) devices [device drivers] that standardized an interface to
application programs and the operating system. More recent operating
systems do not use the BIOS after loading, instead accessing the
hardware components directly.
Source: BIOS (Wikipedia)
Another aspect is the usage of device trees in BSPs, the device tree is a unifying or standardizing concept to describe the hardware of a machine:
U-boot boot loader and getting ready to ship
Doug Abbott, in Linux for Embedded and Real-Time Applications (Fourth
Edition), 2018
Device Trees
One of the biggest problems with porting an operating system such as
Linux to a new platform is describing the hardware. That is because
the hardware description is scattered over perhaps several dozen or so
device drivers, the kernel, and the boot loader, just to name a few.
The ultimate result is that these various pieces of software become
unique to each platform, the number of configuration options grows,
and every board requires a unique kernel image.
There have been a number of approaches to addressing this problem. The
notion of a “board support package” or BSP attempts to gather all of
the hardware-dependent code in a few files in one place. It could be
argued that the entire arch/ subtree of the Linux kernel source tree
is a gigantic board support package.
Take a look at the arch/arm/ subtree of the kernel. In there you will
find a large number of directories of the form mach-* and plat-*,
presumably short for “machine” and “platform,” respectively. Most of
the files in these directories provide configuration information for a
specific implementation of the ARM architecture. And of course, each
implementation describes its configuration differently.
Would not it be nice to have a single language that could be used to
unambiguously describe the hardware of a computer system? That is the
premise, and promise, of device trees.
The peripheral devices in a system can be characterized along a number
of dimensions. There are, for example, character vs block devices.
There are memory mapped devices, and those that connect through an
external bus such as I2C or USB. Then there are platform devices and
discoverable devices.
Discoverable devices are those that live on external busses, such as
PCI and USB, that can tell the system what they are and how they are
configured. That is, they can be “discovered” by the kernel. Having
identified a device, it is a fairly simple matter to load the
corresponding driver, which then interrogates the device to determine
its precise configuration.
Platform devices, on the other hand, lack any mechanism to identify
themselves. System on Chip (SoC) implementations, such as the Sitara,
are rife with these platform devices—system clocks, interrupt
controllers, GPIO, serial ports, to name a few. The device tree
mechanism is particularly useful for managing platform devices.
The device tree concept evolved in the PowerPC branch of the kernel,
and that is where it seems to be used the most. In fact, it is now a
requirement that all PowerPC platforms pass a device tree to the
kernel at boot time. The text representation of a device tree is a
file with the extension .dts. These .dts files are typically found in
the kernel source tree at arch/$ARCH/boot/dts.
A device tree is a hierarchical data structure that describes the
collection of devices and interconnecting busses of a computer system.
It is organized as nodes that begin at a root represented by “/,” just
like the root file system. Every node has a name and consists of
“properties” that are name-value pairs. It may also contain “child”
nodes.
Listing 15.1 is a sample device tree taken from the devicetree.org
website. It does nothing beyond illustrating the structure. Here we
have two nodes named node1 and node2. node1 has two child nodes, and
node2 has one child. Properties are represented by name=value. Values
can be strings, lists of strings, one or more numeric values enclosed
by square brackets, or one or more “cells” enclosed in angle brackets.
The value can also be empty if the property conveys a Boolean value by
its presence or absence.
Source: Board Support Package (ScienceDirect)
Via device tree overlays kernel modules can be loaded at boot time, i.e., on Raspberry Pi adding dtoverlay=lirc-rpi to /boot/config.txt loads the lirc-pi kernel module/device driver:
A future default config.txt may contain a section like this:
# Uncomment some or all of these to enable the optional hardware interfaces
#dtparam=i2c_arm=on
#dtparam=i2s=on
#dtparam=spi=on
If you have an overlay that defines some parameters, they can be
specified either on subsequent lines like this:
dtoverlay=lirc-rpi
dtparam=gpio_out_pin=16
dtparam=gpio_in_pin=17
dtparam=gpio_in_pull=down
Source: Configuration (Raspberry Pi Documentation)
When building BSPs with Yocto, all the hardware information that is scattered over device drivers, the kernel, the boot loader, etc. is gathered. Here is the developer's guide how this can be done in Yocto: Yocto Project Board Support Package Developer's Guide
[Yocto documentation]... states that the BSP “…is concerned with the
hardware-specific components only. At the end-distribution point, you
can ship the BSP combined with a build system and other tools.
However, it is important to maintain the distinction that these are
separate components that happen to be combined in certain end
products.”
Source: Board Support Package: what is it?
A board support package includes everything that is needed to use the board by an application. These include device drivers for the devices on the board and utility software for application programmers. A windowing environment is also available on multi-media boards. System engineers can further add extensions to the board. Some applications require reimplementing some part of the BSP for enhancements. Here the BSP plays a role of a reference implementation or a starting point for such requirements.
The confusion lies in the business model. The reference or development board is not an end/consumer product like a mobile device. It plays an important role to design and develop a product like iPhone or Samsung Galaxy.
A generic BSP will lack optimization in most cases therefore you can only expect a generic BSP for the newbie model or where optimization is left for you to be done. In case of cheap boards the BSP is quite generic because the producer will put less investment into it.
Don't stress much on the terms of kernel and user-space as there are also microkernels available. Here the drivers are part of user-space! Again think of a low-power board which only has one piece of code without any kernel. So it boils down to software that supports the board to do its job.
The driver is a program which says to the kernel like the behavior of the device... The device may be USB devices or camera or Bluetooth or it can be anything.
Based on the size of operation we classify into three char, block, network. But it only gives access to each device...It configures only the device alone not configure the memory, CPU speed. It does not give the instruction for that processor or controller. It is work on that processor or controller. Who enables that microcontroller who define the functionalities, who gives the starting point of the microcontroller. Who gives instructions. Now comes the answer like BSP.
BSP is a board support package which enables the bootloader. It gives the behavior of the system.
Consider the two scenarios,
One is having pc in pc having a USB connector option. All are okay. This is the first scenario
Second is I am having a pc, board alone in the board having USB. The board should talk to USB. What can I do?
In this case, I have a pc with an OS, so I do not need to think about the behaviour of the system. So I just enable the behavior of the device with system OS
In this, the board means that processor with all peripherals. In this case, we do not have an OS, so we need to make or we need to enable the behavior of that device.