I am a newbie to both FreeRTOS and STM32. I want to know how exactly callback function HAL_UART_TxCpltCallback for HAL_UART_Transmit_IT works ?
Can we edit that that callback function for our convenience ?
Thanks in Advance
You call HAL_UART_Transmit_IT to transmit your data in the "interrupt" (non-blocking) mode. This call returns immediately, likely well before your data gets fully trasmitted.
The sequence of events is as follows:
HAL_UART_Transmit_IT stores a pointer and length of the data buffer you provide. It doesn't perform a copy, so your buffer you passed needs to remain valid until callback gets called. For example it cannot be a buffer you'll perform delete [] / free on before callbacks happen or a buffer that's local in a function you're going to return from before a callback call.
It then enables TXE interrupt for this UART, which happens every time the DR (or TDR, depending on STM in use) is empty and can have new data written
At this point interrupt happens immediately. In the IRQ handler (HAL_UART_IRQHandler) a new byte is put in the DR (TDR) register which then gets transmitted - this happens in UART_Transmit_IT.
Once this byte gets transmitted, TXE interrupt gets triggered again and this process repeats until reaching the end of the buffer you've provided.
If any error happens, HAL_UART_ErrorCallback will get called, from IRQ handler
If no errors happened and end of buffer has been reached, HAL_UART_TxCpltCallback is called (from HAL_UART_IRQHandler -> UART_EndTransmit_IT).
On to your second question whether you can edit this callback "for convenience" - I'd say you can do whatever you want, but you'll have to live with the consequences of modifying code what's essentially a library:
Upgrading HAL to newer versions is going to be a nightmare. You'll have to manually re-apply all your changes you've done to that code and test them again. To some extent this can be automated with some form of version control (git / svn) or even patch files, but if the code you've modified gets changed by ST, those patches will likely not apply anymore and you'll have to do it all by hand again. This may require re-discovering how the implementation changed and doing all your work from scratch.
Nobody is going to be able to help you as your library code no longer matches code that everyone else has. If you introduced new bugs by modifying library code, no one will be able to reproduce them. Even if you provided your modifications, I honestly doubt many here will bother to apply your changes and test them in practice.
If I was to express my personal opinion it'd be this: if you think there's bugs in the HAL code - fix them locally and report them to ST. Once they're fixed in future update, fully overwrite your HAL modifications with updated official release. If you think HAL code lacks functionality or flexibility for your needs, you have two options here:
Suggest your changes to ST. You have to keep in mind that HAL aims to serve "general purpose" needs.
Just don't use HAL for this specific peripheral. This "mixed" approach is exactly what I do personally. In some cases functionality provided by HAL for given peripheral is "good enough" to serve my needs (in my case one example is SPI where I fully rely on HAL) while in some other cases - such as UART - I use HAL only for initialization, while handling transmission myself. Even when you decide not to use HAL functions, it can still provide some value - you can for example copy their IRQ handler to your code and call your functions instead. That way you at least skip some parts in development.
Related
I am trying out this MCU / SoC emulator, Renode.
I loaded their existing model template under platforms/cpus/stm32l072.repl, which just includes the repl file for stm32l071 and adds one little thing.
When I then load & run a program binary built with STM32CubeIDE and ST's LL library, and the code hits the initial function of SystemClock_Config(), where the Flash:ACR register is being probed in a loop, to observe an expected change in value, it gets stuck there, as the Renode Monitor window is outputting:
[WARNING] sysbus: Read from an unimplemented register Flash:ACR (0x40022000), returning a value from SVD: 0x0
This seems to be expected, not all existing templates model nearly everything out of the box. I also found that the stm32L071 model is missing some of the USARTs and NVIC channels. I saw how, probably, the latter might be added, but there seems to be not a single among the default models defining that Flash:ACR register that I could use as example.
How would one add such a missing register for this particular MCU model?
Note1: For this test, I'm using a STM32 firmware binary which works as intended on actual hardware, e.g. a devboard for this MCU.
Note2:
The stated advantage of Renode over QEMU, which does apparently not emulate peripherals, is also allowing to stick together a more complex system, out of mocked external e.g. I2C and other devices (apparently C# modules, not yet looked into it).
They say "use the same binary as on the real system".
Which is my reason for trying this out - sounds like a lot of potential for implementing systems where the hardware is not yet fully available, and also automatted testing.
So the obvious thing, commenting out a lot of parts in init code, to only test some hardware-independent code while sidestepping such issues, would defeat the purpose here.
If you want to just provide the ACR register for the flash to pass your init, use a tag.
You can either provide it via REPL (recommended, like here https://github.com/renode/renode/blob/master/platforms/cpus/stm32l071.repl#L175) or via RESC.
Assuming that your software would like to read value 0xDEADBEEF. In the repl you'd use:
sysbus:
init:
Tag <0x40022000, 0x40022003> "ACR" 0xDEADBEEF
In the resc or in the Monitor it would be just:
sysbus Tag <0x40022000, 0x40022003> "ACR" 0xDEADBEEF
If you want more complex logic, you can use a Python peripheral, as described in the docs (https://renode.readthedocs.io/en/latest/basic/using-python.html#python-peripherals-in-a-platform-description):
flash: Python.PythonPeripheral # sysbus 0x40022000
size: 0x1000
initable: false
filename: "script_with_complex_python_logic.py"
```
If you really need advanced implementation, then you need to create a complete C# model.
As you correctly mentioned, we do not want you to modify your binary. But we're ok with mocking some parts we're not interested in for a particular use case if the software passes with these mocks.
Disclaimer: I'm one of the Renode developers.
As we all know,the Hal Lib provides some callback function to manage hardware interrupt.But i don't know how them work?
Te fact is that I am using HAL_UART_RxCpltCallback(UART_HandleTypeDef *huart) this function so as to receive other devices' data and check those data.So I use the usart interrupt to receive them.
But I don't know when the callback function will be executed,is it depends on the receive buffer's length or the data's buffer?
I guess the hardware interrupt will be triggered while a character has been received,but the callback function will be executed after the receive buffer is full.
PS:I am using the stm32-nucleo-f410 development board to communicate with an AT commend device,and I am a novice about it.
(So sorry for my poor English!)
Thanks a lot.
The callback you are referring to is called when the amount of data specified in the receive functions (the third argument to HAL_UART_Receive_IT). You are correct that the UART interrupt service routine (ISR) is called every time a character is received, but when using the HAL that happens internally to the library and doesn't need to be managed by you. Every time the ISR is called, the received character is moved into the array you provide via the second argument of HAL_UART_Receive_IT, and when the number of characters specified by the call is reached, the callback will be called in that ISR (so make sure not to do anything that will take too much time to complete - ISRs should be short, and the ISRs in the HAL library are already pretty lengthy to handle every possible use case).
Further, if you find that the callback is not being triggered even if you are sending enough data to the peripheral, make sure the interrupt is actually enabled - the HAL_UART_Receive_IT function doesn't actually enable the interrupt, that has to be done during initialization of the peripheral.
While re-reading scala.lan.org's page detailing Future here, I have stumbled up on the following sentence:
In the event that some of the callbacks never complete (e.g. the callback contains an infinite loop), the other callbacks may not be executed at all. In these cases, a potentially blocking callback must use the blocking construct (see below).
Why may the other callbacks not be executed at all? I may install a number of callbacks for a given Future. The thread that completes the Future, may or may not execute the callbacks. But, because one callback is not playing footsie, the rest should not be penalized, I think.
One possibility I can think of is the way ExecutionContext is configured. If it is configured with one thread, then this may happen, but that is a specific behaviour and a not generally expected behaviour.
Am I missing something obvious here?
Callbacks are called within an ExecutionContext that has an eventually limited number of threads - if not by the specific context implementation, then by the underlying operating system and/or hardware itself.
Let's say your system's limit is OS_LIMIT threads. You create OS_LIMIT + 1 callbacks. From those, OS_LIMIT callbacks immediately get a thread each - and none ever terminate.
How can you guarantee that the remaining 1 callback ever gets a thread?
Sure, there could be some detection mechanisms built into the Scala library, but it's not possible in the general case to make an optimal implementation: maybe you want the callback to run for a month.
Instead (and this seems to be the approach in the Scala library), you could provide facilities for handling situations that you, the developer, know are risky. This removes the element of surprise from the system.
Perhaps most importantly - it enables the developer to "bake in" the necessary information about handler/task characteristics directly into his/her program, rather than relying on some obscure piece of language functionality (which may change from version to version).
I am writing a device driver for a custom piece of hardware using the Linux kernel 2.6.33. I need am using DMA to transfer data to and from the device. For the output DMA, I was thinking that I would keep track of several output buffers using the Linked List API (struct list_head, list_add(), etc.).
When the device finished the DMA transfer, it raises an interrupt. The interrupt handler would then retrieve item in the linked list to transfer, and remove it from the list.
My question is, is this actually a safe thing to do inside of an interrupt handler? Or are there inherent race conditions in this API that would make it not safe?
The small section in Linux Device Drivers, 3rd Ed. doesn't make mention of this. The section in Essential Linux Device Drivers is more complete but also does not touch on this subject.
Edit:
I am beginning to think that it may very well not be race condition free as msh suggests, due to a note listed in the list_empty_careful() function:
* NOTE: using list_empty_careful() without synchronization
* can only be safe if the only activity that can happen
* to the list entry is list_del_init(). Eg. it cannot be used
* if another CPU could re-list_add() it.
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/list.h?v=2.6.33;a=powerpc#L202
Note that I plan to add to the queue in process context and remove from the queue in interrupt context. Do you really not need synchronization around the functions for a list?
It is perfectly safe to use kernel linked lists in interrupt context, but but retrieving anything in interrupt handlers is a bad idea. In the interrupt handler you should acknowledge interrupt, schedule "bottom half" and quit. All processing should be done by the "bottom half" (bottom half is just a piece of deferred work - there are several suitable mechanisms - tasklets, work queue, etc).
Since I'm not a native English speaker I might be missing something so maybe someone here knows better than me.
Taken from WSASend's doumentation at MSDN:
lpBuffers [in]
A pointer to an array of WSABUF
structures. Each WSABUF structure
contains a pointer to a buffer and the
length, in bytes, of the buffer. For a
Winsock application, once the WSASend
function is called, the system owns
these buffers and the application may
not access them. This array must
remain valid for the duration of the
send operation.
Ok, can you see the bold text? That's the unclear spot!
I can think of two translations for this line (might be something else, you name it):
Translation 1 - "buffers" refers to the OVERLAPPED structure that I pass this function when calling it. I may reuse the object again only when getting a completion notification about it.
Translation 2 - "buffers" refer to the actual buffers, those with the data I'm sending. If the WSABUF object points to one buffer, then I cannot touch this buffer until the operation is complete.
Can anyone tell what's the right interpretation to that line?
And..... If the answer is the second one - how would you resolve it?
Because to me it implies that for each and every data/buffer I'm sending I must retain a copy of it at the sender side - thus having MANY "pending" buffers (in different sizes) on an high traffic application, which really going to hurt "scalability".
Statement 1:
In addition to the above paragraph (the "And...."), I thought that IOCP copies the data to-be-sent to it's own buffer and sends from there, unless you set SO_SNDBUF to zero.
Statement 2:
I use stack-allocated buffers (you know, something like char cBuff[1024]; at the function body - if the translation to the main question is the second option (i.e buffers must stay as they are until the send is complete), then... that really screws things up big-time! Can you think of a way to resolve it? (I know, I asked it in other words above).
The answer is that the overlapped structure and the data buffer itself cannot be reused or released until the completion for the operation occurs.
This is because the operation is completed asynchronously so even if the data is eventually copied into operating system owned buffers in the TCP/IP stack that may not occur until some time in the future and you're notified of when by the write completion occurring. Note that with write completions these may be delayed for a surprising amount of time if you're sending without explicit flow control and relying on the the TCP stack to do flow control for you (see here: some OVERLAPS using WSASend not returning in a timely manner using GetQueuedCompletionStatus?) ...
You can't use stack allocated buffers unless you place an event in the overlapped structure and block on it until the async operation completes; there's not a lot of point in doing that as you add complexity over a normal blocking call and you don't gain a great deal by issuing the call async and then waiting on it.
In my IOCP server framework (which you can get for free from here) I use dynamically allocated buffers which include the OVERLAPPED structure and which are reference counted. This means that the cleanup (in my case they're returned to a pool for reuse) happens when the completion occurs and the reference is released. It also means that you can choose to continue to use the buffer after the operation and the cleanup is still simple.
See also here: I/O Completion Port, How to free Per Socket Context and Per I/O Context?