I have a high speed clock at 10 MHz going to the processor's TIM4 input capture pin (ch.3). I would like to verify that the clock is running at 10 MHz with the processor's input capture. I coded the processor with the input capture module, and it works fine for lower frequencies (around 1 kHz or so). Once I start to climb the frequency up to the MHz range, the processor starts to miss interrupts and thus gives me an incorrect frequency. I didn't see anywhere in the datasheet that states the maximum frequency that the input capture can read. I have an external clock of 8 MHz, and a core clock of 72 MHz, so I would imagine that I can read a 10 MHz signal. Any ideas?
Take a look at the TIM_ICInitStructure.TIM_ICPrescaler options. Usually you'll have it set to TIM_ICPSC_DIV1 so that interrupts are generated on every valid transition.
Prescaler values of 1,2,4 and 8 are available that will allow you to effictively reduce the rate of interrupt generation by that factor. For example, for a 10MHz signal with a prescaler of 8 you'd expect to count a frequency of 10Mhz/8 = 1.25MHz.
This is still quite tight for a 72MHz HCLK so you'll still need to optimise your IRQ handler carefully.
Looks like you're generating an interrupt request for every rising (or falling) edge of the clock.
If that is indeed the case, then think about this for a second: with a 10 MHz input signal, you're generating an interrupt about every 7 CPU cycles. In these 7 CPU cycles, you need to budget time to save registers to RAM, run the IRQ handler function prolog, run the actual code you wrote for the interrupt handler, run the IRQ handler function epilogue, and restore the registers.
Best case, if you set compiler flags to optimize for speed and you're not doing much processing in the interrupt handler, you're looking at tens of cycles to run all these tasks. Since you only have 7 cycles to run tens of cycles' worth of processing, it's no surprise that you're missing interrupts.
You can't use an interrupt routine at that frequency. You need to feed the 10MHz in as an external trigger to the timer. Then you can use the prescaler and the timer to divide down to a suitable lower interrupt frequency.
Related
I want to generate clock for PCA9959 LED driver with my STM32L552. The LED driver needs an external clock at 20 MHz (+/- 15%). I'm trying to generate a 22 MHz clock on port PA8 on STM32L552. I managed to generate a PWM on port PA8, but I can't reach the frequency of ~22Mhz. I arrive at a maximum of 8Mhz.
Here are the PWM parameters:
I'm not sure I filled in the pwm parameters correctly. Normally with his settings I guess I should have a 22 MHz PWM with a 20% duty cycle.
PWM (MHz) = SystemCoreClock (MHz) / Prescaler => 22MhZ = 110MHz / 5
My clock configuration:
Thanks for your help.
The easiest way to output a high speed clock like this is with the MCO peripheral, rather than a timer. Fortunately for you the MCO pin is PA8. Perhaps the person who designed your board knew this and intended you to use MCO. Read the reference manual to see how.
If you do want to use a timer to do 22MHz, then as you have correctly identified you cannot get a 50% duty-cycle on your PWM. I would recommend starting with a 40% or 60%, with an output-compare value of 2-out-of-5 or 3-out-of-5, not 1 as you have above.
There is no detail in the PCA9959 datasheet about what the required mark-space ratio of the clock is, but I guess anything other than 50% could be a problem. You would be better to divide the clock by an even number. Either just divide 110MHz by 6 and output 18.33MHz, or else slow your core down a bit and divide by 4 (reduce the N parameter of your PLL).
Whether you use MCO or PWM don't forget to set the GPIO pin mode to the fastest slew rate available. Maybe the 8MHz you are measuring is the result of aliasing a faster clock that has been through the wrong GPIO mode. You could test this using a scope with at least 100MHz bandwidth.
I'm implementing a high frequency(>100kHz) Data acquisition system with an STM32F107VC microcontroller. It uses the spi peripheral to communicate with a high frequency ADC chip. I have to use an RTOS. How can I do this?
I have tried FreeRTOS but its maximum tick frequency is 1000Hz so I can't run a thread for example every 1us with FreeRTOS. I also tried Keil RTX5 and its tick frequency can be up to 1MHz but I studied somewhere that it is not recommended to set the tick frequency high because it increases the overall context switching time. So what should I do?
Thanks.
You do not want to run a task at this frequency. As you mentioned, context switches will kill the performance. This is horribly inefficient.
Instead, you want to use buffering, interrupts and DMA. Since it's a high frequency ADC chip, it probably has an internal buffer of its own. Check the datasheet for this. If the chip has a 16 samples buffer, a 100kHz sampling will only need processing at 6.25kHz. Now don't use a task to process the samples at 6.25kHz. Do the receiving in an interrupt (timer or some signal), and the interrupt should only fill a buffer, and wake up a task for processing when the buffer is full (and switch to another buffer until the task has finished). With this you can have a task that runs only every 10ms or so. An interrupt is not a context switch. On a Cortex-M3 it will have a latency of around 12 cycles, which is low enough to be negligible at 6.25kHz.
If your ADC chip doesn't have a buffer (but I doubt that), you may be ok with a 100kHz interrupt, but put as little code as possible inside.
A better solution is to use a DMA if your MCU supports that. For example, you can setup a DMA to receive from the SPI using a timer as a request generator. Depending on your case it may be impossible or tricky to configure, but a working DMA means that you can receive a large buffer of samples without any code running on your MCU.
I have to use an RTOS.
No way. If it's a requirement by your boss or client, run away from the project fast. If that's not possible, communicate your concerns in writing now to save your posterior when the reasons of failure will be discussed. If it's your idea, then reconsider now.
The maximum system clock speed of the STM32F107 is 36 MHz (72 if there is an external HSE quartz), meaning that there are only 360 to 720 system clock cycles between the ticks coming at 100 kHz. The RTX5 warning is right, a significant amount of this time would be required for task switching overhead.
It is possible to have a timer interrupt at 100 kHz, and do some simple processing in the interrupt handler (don't even think about using HAL), but I'd recommend investigating first whether it's really necessary to run code every 10 μs, or is it possible to offload something that it would do to the DMA or timer hardware.
Since you only have a few hundred cycles (instructions) between input, the typical solution is to use an interrupt to be alerted that data is available, and then the interrupt handler put the data somewhere so you can process them at your leisure. Of course if the data comes in continuously at that rate, you maybe in trouble with no time for actual processing. Depending on how much data is coming in and how frequent, a simple round buffer maybe sufficient. If the amount of data is relatively large (how large is large? Consider that it takes more than one CPU cycle to do a memory access, and it takes 2 memory accesses per each datum that comes in), then using DMA as #Elderbug suggested is a great solution as that consumes the minimal amount of CPU cycles.
There is no need to set the RTOS tick to match the data acquisition rate - the two are unrelated. And to do so would be a very poor and ill-advised solution.
The STM32 has DMA capability for most peripherals including SPI. You need to configure the DMA and SPI to transfer a sequence of samples directly to memory. The DMA controller has full and half transfer interrupts, and can cycle a provided buffer so that when it is full, it starts again from the beginning. That can be used to "double buffer" the sample blocks.
So for example if you use a DMA buffer of say 256 samples and sample at 100Ksps, you will get a DMA interrupt every 1.28ms independent of the RTOS tick interrupt and scheduling. On the half-transfer interrupt the first 128 samples are ready for processing, on the full-transfer, the second 128 samples can be processed, and in the 1.28ms interval, the processor is free to do useful work.
In the interrupt handler, rather then processing all the block data in the interrupt handler - which would not in any case be possible if the processing were non-deterministic or blocking, such as writing it to a file system - you might for example send the samples in blocks via a message queue to a task context that performs the less deterministic processing.
Note that none of this relies on the RTOS tick - the scheduler will run after any interrupt if that interrupt calls a scheduling function such as posting to a message queue. Synchronising actions to an RTOS clock running asynchronously to the triggering event (i.e. polling) is not a good way to achieve highly deterministic real-time response and is a particularly poor method for signal acquisition, which requires a jitter free sampling interval to avoid false artefacts in the signal from aperiodic sampling.
Your assumption that you need to solve this problem by an inappropriately high RTOS tick rate is to misunderstand the operation of the RTOS, and will probably only work if your processor is doing no other work beyond sampling data - in which case you might not need an RTOS at all, but it would not be a very efficient use of the processor.
I'm testing the SPI capabilities of STM32H7. For this I'm using the SPI examples provided in STM32CubeH7 on 2 Nucleo-H743ZI boards. I will perhaps not keep this code in my own development, rigth now the goal is to understand how SPI is working and what bandwith I can get in the different modes (with DMA, with cache enabled or not, etc...).
I'd like to share the figures I've computed, as it doesn't seem very high. In the example, if I understood correctly, the CPU is # 400Mhz and the SPI bus frequency # 100MHz.
For polling mode I've measured the number of cycles of the call to function HAL_SPI_TransmitReceive.
For DMA I've measured between call to HAL_SPI_TransmitReceive_DMA and call to the transfer complete callback.
Measurements of cycles where made with SysTick clocked on internal clock. Since there is no low power usage, it should be accurate.
I've just modified ST's examples to send a buffer of 1KB.
I get around 200.000 CPU cycles in polling mode, which means around 2MB/s
And around 3MB/s in DMA mode.
Since the SPI clock runs at 100Mhz I would have expected much more, especially in DMA mode, what do you think ? Is there something wrong in my test procedure ?
I have a thread that needs to process a list of items every X nanoseconds, where X < 1 microsecond. I understand that with standard x86 hardware the clock resolution is at best 15 - 16 milliseconds. Is there hardware available that would enable a clock resolution < 1 microsecond? At present, the thread runs continuously as the resolution of nanosleep() is insufficient. The thread obtains the current time from a GPS reference.
You can get the current time with extremely high precision on x86 using the rdtsc instruction. It counts clock cycles (on a fixed reference clock, not the actually dynamic frequency CPU clock), so you can use it as a time source once you find the coefficients that map it to real GPS-time.
This is the clock-source Linux uses internally, on new enough hardware. (Older CPUs had the rdtsc clock pause when the CPU was halted on idle, and/or change frequency with CPU frequency scaling). It was originally intended for measuring CPU-time, but it turns out that a very precise clock with very low-cost reads (~30 clock cycles) was valuable, hence decoupling it from CPU core clock changes.
It sounds like an accurate clock isn't your only problem, though: If you need to process a list every ~1 us, without ever missing a wakeup, you need a realtime OS, or at least realtime functionality on top of a regular OS (like Linux).
Knowing what time it is when you do eventually wake up doesn't help if you slept 10 ms too long because you read a page of memory that the OS decided to evict, and had to get from disk.
I'm currently learning about interrupts but don't understand how you
calculate the data rate for the question below. I have the answers but
I have no idea how you get there. If someone could please explain to
me how it is calculated it would be really appreciated.
Here is the question...
This question concerns the use of interrupts to handle the input and
storage in memory of data arriving at an input interface, and the
consideration of data rates that be achieved using this mechanism. In
this particular question, the arrival of each new data item triggers
an interrupt request to input and store the data item in a queue in
memory.The question is about calculating the maximum data rate
achievable in this scenario.
You are first required to calculate the time to respond to an
interrupt from the interface, run the interrupt service routine (ISR)
and return to the interrupted program.From this and the number of data
bits input on each interrupt, you are required to calculate the
maximum data rate in bits per second, that can be handled. Below you
are given: the number of clock cycles the CPU requires to respond to
the interrupt and switch to the ISR, the number of instructions
executed by the ISR, the average number of clock cycles executed per
instruction in the ISR, the number of bits in the data item input on
each interrupt, and the clock frequency. [You can assume that when the
CPU can be immediately interrupted again as soon as the ISR completes,
but not before this]
clock cycles to respond to interrupt = 15
instructions executed in ISR= 70
average clock cycles per instruction = 5
number of bits per data item = 32
clock frequency = 10MHz
Questions
a) What is the time in microseconds to respond to an interrupt from
the interface, run the interrupt service routine (ISR) and return to
the interrupted program?
b)What is the maximum data rate in Kbits/second?
Answers
a) 36.5 - I understand this
b) 876.7 - ????
Because each ISR takes 36.5 us, the absolute maximum number of ISRs that can happen in a second is 27,397.2603.
In each ISR, 32 bits of data are processed.
Therefore, 27397.2603 * 32 bits = 876.712.33 bits processed per second