I've been experimenting with writing to an external EEPROM using SPI and I've had mixed success. The data does get shifted out but in an opposite manner. The EEPROM requires a start bit and then an opcode which is essentially a 2-bit code for read, write and erase. Essentially the start bit and the opcode are combined into one byte. I'm creating a 32-bit unsigned int and then bit-shifting the values into it. When I transmit these I see that the actual data is being seen first and then the SB+opcode and then the memory address. How do I reverse this to see the opcode first then the memory address and then the actual data. As seen in the image below, the data is BCDE, SB+opcode is 07 and the memory address is 3F. The correct sequence should be 07, 3F and then BCDE (I think!).
Here is the code:
uint8_t mem_addr = 0x3F;
uint16_t data = 0xBCDE;
uint32_t write_package = (ERASE << 24 | mem_addr << 16 | data);
while (1)
{
/* USER CODE END WHILE */
/* USER CODE BEGIN 3 */
HAL_SPI_Transmit(&hspi1, &write_package, 2, HAL_MAX_DELAY);
HAL_Delay(10);
}
/* USER CODE END 3 */
It looks like as your SPI interface is set up to process 16 bit halfwords at a time. Therefore it would make sense to break up the data to be sent into 16 bit halfwords too. That would take care of the ordering.
uint8_t mem_addr = 0x3F;
uint16_t data = 0xBCDE;
uint16_t write_package[2] = {
(ERASE << 8) | mem_addr,
data
};
HAL_SPI_Transmit(&hspi1, (uint8_t *)write_package, 2, HAL_MAX_DELAY);
EDIT
Added an explicit cast. As noted in the comments, without the explicit cast it wouldn't compile as C++ code, and cause some warnings as C code.
You're packing your information into a 32 bit integer, on line 3 of your code you have the decision about which bits of data are placed where in the word. To change the order you can replace the line with:
uint32_t write_package = ((data << 16) | (mem_addr << 8) | (ERASE));
That is shifting data 16 bits left into the most significant 16 bits of the word, shifting mem_addr up by 8 bits and or-ing it in, and then adding ERASE in the least significant bits.
Your problem is the Endianness.
By default the STM32 uses little edian so the lowest byte of the uint32_t is stored at the first adrress.
If I'm right this is the declaration if the transmit function you are using:
HAL_StatusTypeDef HAL_SPI_Transmit(SPI_HandleTypeDef *hspi, uint8_t *pData, uint16_t Size, uint32_t Timeout)
It requires a pointer to uint8_t as data (and not a uint32_t) so you should get at least a warning if you compile your code.
If you want to write code that is independent of the used endianess, you should store your data into an array instead of one "big" variable.
uint8_t write_package[4];
write_package[0] = ERASE;
write_package[1] = mem_addr;
write_package[2] = (data >> 8) & 0xFF;
write_package[3] = (data & 0xFF);
Related
I am writing a program that writes to a device's range of HW registers. I am using mmap to map the HW addresses to virtual address (user space). I tested the result from the mmap and it is OK. I implemented a copy of a buffer into the device:
void bufferCopy(void *dest, void *src, const size_t size) {
uint8_t *pdest = static_cast<uint8_t *>(dest);
uint8_t *psrc = static_cast<uint8_t *>(src);
size_t iters = 0, tailBytes = 0;
/* iterate 64bit */
iters = (size / sizeof(uint64_t));
for (size_t index = 0; index < iters; ++index) {
*(reinterpret_cast<uint64_t *>(pdest)) =
*(reinterpret_cast<uint64_t *>(psrc));
pdest += sizeof(uint64_t);
psrc += sizeof(uint64_t);
}
.
.
.
but when running it on QEMU I get illegal instruction exception. When I debugged got it crashes on the next instruction (below is the asm of the main loop):
movdqu (%rsi,%rax,1),%xmm0
movups %xmm0,(%rdi,%rax,1) <----- this instruction crashes ...
add $0x10,%rax
cmp %rax,%r9
jne 0x7ffff7eca1e0 <_ZN12_GLOBAL__N_110bufferCopyEPvS0_m+64>
any ideas why ? my guess that you can write to PCI only 32/64 bit.
The compile doesn’t know my limitations, so it optimize my code and create vectorized loop (each iteration loads 128 bit and saves 128 bit). Is is making sense ?? can I write to PCI with vectorized instructions ?
Also, whether it is a missing feature in QEMU or a bug or just a recommendation, how can I prevent from the compiler to generate those vector instructions ?
I'm still doing SPI experiments between two Nucleo STM32H743 boards.
I've configured SPI in Full-Duplex mode, with CRC enabled, with a SPI frequency of 25MHz (so Slave can transmit without issue).
DSIZE is 8 bits and FIFO threshold is 4.
On Master side, I'm sending 4 bytes then wait for 5 bytes from the Slave. I know I could use half-duplex or simplex mode but I want to understand what's going on in full-duplex mode.
volatile unsigned long *CR1 = (unsigned long *)0x40013000;
volatile unsigned long *CR2 = (unsigned long *)0x40013004;
volatile unsigned long *TXDR = (unsigned long *)0x40013020;
volatile unsigned long *RXDR = (unsigned long *)0x40013030;
volatile unsigned long *SR = (unsigned long *)0x40013014;
volatile unsigned long *IFCR = (unsigned long *)0x40013018;
volatile unsigned long *TXCRC = (unsigned long *)0x40013044;
volatile unsigned long *RXCRC = (unsigned long *)0x40013048;
volatile unsigned long *CFG2 = (unsigned long *)0x4001300C;
unsigned long SPI_TransmitCommandFullDuplex(uint32_t Data)
{
// size of transfer (TSIZE)
*CR2 = 4;
/* Enable SPI peripheral */
*CR1 |= SPI_CR1_SPE;
/* Master transfer start */
*CR1 |= SPI_CR1_CSTART;
*TXDR = Data;
while ( ((*SR) & SPI_FLAG_EOT) == 0 );
// clear flags
*IFCR = 0xFFFFFFFF;
// disable SPI
*CR1 &= ~SPI_CR1_SPE;
return 0;
}
void SPI_ReceiveResponseFullDuplex(uint8_t *pData)
{
unsigned long temp;
// size of transfer (TSIZE)
*CR2 = 5;
/* Enable SPI peripheral */
*CR1 |= SPI_CR1_SPE;
/* Master transfer start */
*CR1 |= SPI_CR1_CSTART;
*TXDR = 0;
*((volatile uint8_t *)TXDR) = 0;
while ( ((*SR) & SPI_FLAG_EOT) == 0 );
*((uint32_t *)pData) = *RXDR;
*((uint8_t *)(pData+4)) = *((volatile uint8_t *)RXDR);
// clear flags
*IFCR = 0xFFFFFFFF;
// disable SPI
*CR1 &= ~SPI_CR1_SPE;
return temp;
}
This is working fine (both functions are just called in sequence in the main).
Then I tried to remove the SPI disabling between the two steps (ie. I don't clear and set again the bit SPE) and I got stuck in function SPI_ReceiveResponseFullDuplex in the while.
Is it necessary to disable SPI between two transmissions or did I make a mistake in the configuration ?
The behaviour of SPE bit is not very clear in the reference manual. For example is it written clearly that, in half-duplex mode, the SPI has to be disabled to change the direction of communication. But nothing in fuill-duplex mode (or I missed it).
This errata item might be relevant here.
Master data transfer stall at system clock much faster than SCK
Description
With the system clock (spi_pclk) substantially faster than SCK (spi_ker_ck divided by a prescaler), SPI/I2S master data transfer can stall upon setting the CSTART bit within one SCK cycle after the EOT event (EOT flag raise) signaling the end of the previous transfer.
Workaround
Apply one of the following measures:
• Disable then enable SPI/I2S after each EOT event.
• Upon EOT event, wait for at least one SCK cycle before setting CSTART.
• Prevent EOT events from occurring, by setting transfer size to undefined (TSIZE = 0)
and by triggering transmission exclusively by TXFIFO writes.
Your SCK frequency is 25 MHz, the system clock can be 400 or 480MHz, 16 or 19 times SCK. When you remove the lines clearing and setting SPE, only these lines remain in effect after detecting EOT
*IFCR = 0xFFFFFFFF;
*CR2 = 5;
*CR1 |= SPI_CR1_CSTART;
When this sequence (quite probably) takes less than 16 clock cycles, then there is the problem described above. Looks like someone did a sloppy work again at the SPI clock system. What you did first, clearing and setting SPE is one of the recommended workarounds.
I would just set TSIZE=9 at the start, then write the command and the dummy bytes in one go, it makes no difference in full-duplex mode.
Keep in mind that in full duplex mode, another 4 bytes are received which must be read and discarded before getting the real answer. This was not a problem with your original code, because clearing SPE discards data still in the receive FIFO, but it would become one if the modified code worked, e.g there were some more delay before enabling CSTART again.
I have set an 8-bit bus on (PD0:PD7) on the stm32 MCU to send addresses to another chip (0:255). I am interested if a function like below would work for fast change in addresses. I could not find an example directly showing register to be equal to integer so I want to confirm it would work. I need a function to which I will give an integer value for the address (0:255) and it will set the 8 pins of the bus with this value:
void chipbus(uint16_t bus8){
GPIOD->regs->BSRR = bus8; // set all the '1' in bus8 to high
GPIOD->regs->BRR = 255-bus8; // 255-bus8 inverts the 8 bits
// BRR to set the new '1' to low
}
If this solution works, I am curious also if I change the bus to ports PD5:PD12 would my function work as:
void chipbus(uint16_t bus8){
GPIOD->regs->BSRR = bus8*32; // set all '1' in bus8 to high
// multiply by 32 to shift 5 bits/pins
GPIOD->regs->BRR = (255-bus8)*32; // 255-bus8 inverts the 8 bits
// BRR to set the new '1' to low
}
Thank you!
Yes, both should work. However, a more recognisable but equivalent formulation would be:
void chipbus(uint16_t bus8) {
GPIOD->regs->BSRR = bus8; // set all the '1' in bus8 to high
GPIOD->regs->BRR = (~bus8) & 0xFF; // inverts the 8 bits // BRR to set the new '1' to low
}
void chipbus(uint16_t bus8) {
GPIOD->regs->BSRR = bus8<<5; // set all '1' in bus8 to high, shift 5 bits
GPIOD->regs->BRR = ((~bus8)&0xFF)<<5; // inverts the 8 bits
}
But, there is an even faster way. BSRR is a 32bit register than can both set and reset. You can combine the two write accesses into one:
void chipbus(uint16_t bus8) {
GPIOD->regs->BSRR =
(bus8<<5) | (((~bus8) & 0xFF) << (16+5));
}
Happy bit-fiddling!
Yes, it'd definitely work. However, as others have noted, it's advisable to set the outputs in a single operation.
Taking advantage of the full 32 bit BSRR register, it can be done without inverting the data bits:
GPIOD->regs->BSRR = bus8 | (0xFF << 16);
or
GPIOD->regs->BSRR = (bus8 << 5) | (0xFF << (16 + 5));
because BSRR has the functionality to set some bits and reset some others in a single write operation, and when both the set and reset bits for a particular pin is set, the output becomes 1.
I wouldn't recommend using this approach. Writing to BSRR and BRR as two separate steps means that the bus will transition through an unintended state where some bits are still set from the previous value.
Instead, consider writing directly to the GPIO output data register (ODR). If you need to preserve the original value of the upper bits in the port, you can do that on the CPU side:
GPIOD->regs->ODR = (GPIOD->regs->ODR & 0xff00) | (bus8 & 0x00ff);
I am developing a network driver (RTL8139) for a selfmade operating system and have problems in writing values to the PCI configuration space registers.
I want to change the value of the interrupt line (offset 0x3c) to get another IRQ number and enable bus master (set bit 2) of the command register (offset 0x04).
When I read back the values I see that my values are correctly written. But instead of using the new IRQ number (in my case 6) it uses the old value (11).
Also bus master for DMA is not working (my packets I would like to send have the correct size (set by IO-Port) but they have no content (all values just 0, transceive buffer is on physical memory and has non zero values). This always worked with my code as expected after I double checked the physical address. I need this to let the network controller access to my physical memory where my buffers for receive/transceive are. (Bus mastering needed for RTL8139)
Do I have to do something else to confirm my changes to the PCI-device?
As emulator I use qemu.
For reading/writing I wrote the following functions:
uint16_t pci_read_word(uint16_t bus, uint16_t slot, uint16_t func, uint16_t offset)
{
uint64_t address;
uint64_t lbus = (uint64_t)bus;
uint64_t lslot = (uint64_t)slot;
uint64_t lfunc = (uint64_t)func;
uint16_t tmp = 0;
address = (uint64_t)((lbus << 16) | (lslot << 11) |
(lfunc << 8) | (offset & 0xfc) | ((uint32_t)0x80000000));
outportl (0xCF8, address);
tmp = (uint16_t)((inportl (0xCFC) >> ((offset & 2) * 8)) & 0xffff);
return (tmp);
}
uint16_t pci_write_word(uint16_t bus, uint16_t slot, uint16_t func, uint16_t offset, uint16_t data)
{
uint64_t address;
uint64_t lbus = (uint64_t)bus;
uint64_t lslot = (uint64_t)slot;
uint64_t lfunc = (uint64_t)func;
uint32_t tmp = 0;
address = (uint64_t)((lbus << 16) | (lslot << 11) |
(lfunc << 8) | (offset & 0xfc) | ((uint32_t)0x80000000));
outportl (0xCF8, address);
tmp = (inportl (0xCFC));
tmp &= ~(0xFFFF << ((offset & 0x2)*8)); // reset the word at the offset
tmp |= data << ((offset & 0x2)*8); // write the data at the offset
outportl (0xCF8, address); // set address again just to be sure
outportl(0xCFC,tmp); // write data
return pci_read_word(bus,slot,func,offset); // read back data;
}
I hope somebody can help me.
The "interrupt line" field (at offset 0x03C in PCI configuration space) literally does nothing.
The Full Story
PCI cards could use up to 4 "PCI IRQs" at the PCI slot; and use them in order (so if you have ten PCI cards that all have one IRQ, then they'll all use the first PCI IRQ at the slot).
There's a tricky "barber pole" arrangement to connect "PCI IRQ at the slot" to "PCI IRQ at the host controller" that is designed to reduce IRQ sharing. If you have ten PCI cards that all have one IRQ, then they'll all use the first PCI IRQ at the slot, but the first IRQ at each PCI slot will be connected to a different PCI IRQ at the host controller. All of this is hard-wired and can not be changed by software.
To complicate things more; to connect PCI IRQs (from the PCI host controller) to the legacy PIC chips, a special "PCI IRQ router" was added. In theory the configuration of the "PCI IRQ router" can be changed by software (if you can find the documentation that describes a table that describes the location, capabilities and restrictions of the "PCI IRQ router").
Without the firmware's help it'd be impossible for an OS to figure out which PIC chip input a PCI device actually uses. For that reason, the firmware figures it out during boot and then stores "PIC chip input number" somewhere for the OS to find. That is what the "interrupt line" register is - it's just an 8-bit register that can store anything you like (that the BIOS/firmware uses to store "PIC chip input number").
I am writing a SD Card low level driver to implement Chan's FATFS System on a Olimex MOD-MP3-X board with a STM32f103rb processor. I'm pretty new to this topic at all and I am no native english speaker, but i hope i can point out my problem.
At first I want to write a function to send the cmd commands via SPI.
So i got this Prototype for the function usage:
static void sd_cmd(uint8_t cmd, uint32_t arg);
//I already found the HAL-command to transmit the data:
HAL_SPI_Transmit_IT(SPI_HandleTypeDef *hspi, uint8_t *pData, uint16_t Size);
//But I don't know exactly how put the Argument and the cmd into the data buffer.
//I already tried by creating an array, but this didn't work:
uint8_t buffer[5];
uint8_t buffer[0]= 0x40 | cmd;
uint8_t buffer[1]= arg >> 24;
uint8_t buffer[2]= arg >> 16;
uint8_t buffer[3]= arg >> 8;
uint8_t buffer[4]= arg;
...
HAL_SPI_Transmit_IT(&hspi2, &buffer, 5);