I'm trying to convert my boost MSM state machine to SML.
My MSM state machine can be seen here:
Boost MSM process_event doesn't transit between SM states
After I looked on SML documentation it seems that it doesn't support pseudo states (exit/entry pseudo states).
From my understanding in order to transit OperationlSm state macine to GapWaiting state after receiving EvGetGrantsRsp event inside CyclingSm state machine (inner SM of OperationalSm) I must somehow explicitly tell OperationalSm to do this transition (what actually was done automatically for me here:
msmf::Row<Cycling::exit_pt<Cycling::PseudoCycleExit>, msmf::none, GapWaiting, msmf::none, msmf::none>,
My question is there some way I can create such behavior by using SML?
Related
I completed Anton Potočniks' introductory guide to the red pitaya board and I am now able to send commands from the linux machine running on the SoC to its FPGA logic.
I would like to further modify the project so that I can control the phase of the signal that is being transmitted via the red pitayas' DAC. Some pins (from 7 down to 1) of the first GPIO port were still unused so I started setting them from within the OS and used the red pitaya's LEDs to confirm that they were being set without interfering with the functionality of Anton Potočnik's "high bandwidth averager".
I then set the DDS_compilers' to Phase Offset Programmability to "streaming" mode so that it can be configured on the fly using the bits that are currently controling the red pitaya's LEDs. I used some slices to connect my signals to the AXI4-Stream Constant IP core, which in turn drives the DDS compiler.
Unfortunately the DAC is just giving me a constant output of 500 mV.
I created a new project with a testbench for the DDS compiler, because synthesis takes a long time and doesn't give me much insight into what is happening.
Unfortunately all the output signals of the DDS compiler are undefined.
My question:
What am I doing wrong and how can I proceed to control DACs' phase?
EDIT1; here is my test bench
The IP core is configured as follows, so many of the control signals that I provided should not be required:
EDIT2; I changed declarations of the form m_axis_data_tready => '0' to m_axis_phase_tready => m_axis_phase_tready_signal. I also took a look at the wrapper file called dds_compiler_0.vhd and saw that it treats both m_axis_phase_tready and m_axis_data_tready as inputs.
My simulation results remained unchanged...
My new test bench can be found here.
EDIT3: Vivado was just giving me the old simulation results - creating a new testbench, deleting the file under <project_name>.sim/sim_1/behav/xsim/simulate.log and restarting vivado solved this problem.
I noticed that the wrapper file (dds_compiler_0.vhd) only has five ports:
aclk (in)
s_axis_phase_tvalid (in)
s_axis_phase_tdata (in)
m_axis_data_tvalid (out)
and m_axis_data_tdata (out)
So I removed all the unnecessary control signals and got a new simulation result, but I am still not recieving any useful output from the dds_compiler:
The corresponding testbench can be found here.
I also don't get any valid output when I include the control signals.
The corresponding testbench can be found here.
Looks like m_axis_data_tready is not connected. No data will come out unless that's asserted.
Coming form this question yesterday, I decided to port this library to my board. I was aware that I needed to change something, so I compiled the library, call it on a small program and see what happens. The 1st problem is here:
// Check for GPIO and peripheral addresses from device tree.
// Adapted from code in the RPi.GPIO library at:
// http://sourceforge.net/p/raspberry-gpio-python/
FILE *fp = fopen("/proc/device-tree/soc/ranges", "rb");
if (fp == NULL) {
return MMIO_ERROR_OFFSET;
}
This lib is aimed for Rpi, os the structure of the system on my board is not the same. So I was wondering if somebody could tell me where I could find this file or how it looks like so I can find it by my self in order to proceed the job.
Thanks.
You don't necessarily want that "file" (or more precisely /proc node).
The code this is found in is setting up to do direct memory mapped I/O using what appears to be a pi-specific gpio-flavored version of the /dev/mem type of device driver for exposing hardware special function registers to userspace.
To port this to your board, you would need to first determine if there is a /dev/mem or similar capability in your kernel which you can activate. Then you would need to determine the appropriate I/O registers for GPIO pins. The pi-specific code is reading the Device Tree to figure this out, but there are other ways, for example you can manually read the programmer's manual of the SoC on which you are running.
Another approach you can consider is adding some small microcontroller (or yes, barebones ***duino) to the system, and using that to collect information from various sensors and peripherals. This can then be forwarded to the SoC over a UART link, or queried out via I2C or similar - add a small amount of cost and some degree of bottleneck, but also means that the software on the SoC then becomes very portable - to a different comparable chip, or perhaps even to run on a desktop PC during development.
I've recently decided to try ti-basic programming, and while I was playing with getKey; I noticed that it had a 1s~ input lag after the first input. Is this built into the calculator, or can this be changed?
I recognize that "Quick Key" code above ;) (I'm the original author and very glad to see it spread around!).
Anyway, here is my low-level knowledge of the subject:
The operating system uses what is known as an interrupt in order to handle reading the keyboard, link port, USB port, and the run indicator among other things. The interrupt is just software code, nothing hardware implemented. So it is hardwired into the OS not the calculator.
The gist of the code TI uses is that once it reads that a key press occurred, it resets a counter to 50 and decrements it so long as the user holds down the key. Once the counter reaches zero, it tells getKey to recognize it as a new keypress and then it resets the counter to 10. This cause the initial delay to be longer than subsequent delays.
The TI-OS allows third party "hooks" to jump in and modify the getkey process and I used such a hook in another more complicated program (Speedy Keys). However, this hook is never called during BASIC program execution except at a Pause or Menu( command, where it isn't too helpful.
Instead what we can do is setup a parser hook that modifies the getkey counters. Alternatively, you can use the QuickKey code above, or you can use Hybrid BASIC which requires you to download a third-party App. A few of these apps (BatLib [by me], Celtic 3, DoorsCS7, and xLIB) offer a very fast getKey alternative as well as many other powerful functions.
The following is the code for setting up the parser hook. It works very well in my tests! See notes below:
#include "ti83plus.inc" ; ~~This column is the stuff for manually
_EnableParserHook = 5026h ; creating the code on calc. ~~
.db $BB,$6D ;AsmPrgm
.org $9D95 ;
ld hl,hookcode ;21A89D
ld de,appbackupscreen ;117298
ld bc,hookend-hookcode ;010A00
ldir ;EDB0
ld hl,appbackupscreen ;217298
ld a,l ;7D
bcall(_EnableParserHook);EF2650
ret ;C9
hookcode: ;
.db 83h ;83
push af ;F5
ld a,1 ;3E01
ld (8442h),a ;324284
pop af ;F1
cp a ;BF
ret ;C9
hookend: ;
Notes: other apps or programs may use parser hooks. Using this program will disable those hooks and you will need to reinstall them. This is pretty easy.
Finally, if you manually putting this on your calculator, use the right column code. Here is an animated .gif showing how to make such a program:
You will need to run the program once either on the homescreen or at the start of your main program. After this, all getKeys will have no delay.
I figured out this myself too when I was experimenting with my Ti-84 during the summer. This lag cannot be changed. This is built into the calculator. I think this is because of how the microchip used in ti-84 is a Intel Zilog Z80 microprocessor which was made in 1984.
This is unfortunately simply the inefficiency of the calculator. TI-basic is a fairly high-level language and meant to be easy to use and is thus not very efficient or fast. Especially with respect to input and output, i.e. printing messages and getting input.
Quick Key
:AsmPrgm3A3F84EF8C47EFBF4AC9
This is a getKey routine that makes all keys repeat, not just arrows and there is no delay between repeats. The key codes are different, so you might need to experiment.
Recently I read the source of leveldb, the source url is https://leveldb.googlecode.com/files/leveldb-1.13.0.tar.gz
And when I read db/db_impl.cc,there comes the following code:
mutex_.AssertHeld()
I follow it into file port/port_posix.h,and I find the following :
void AssertHeld() { }
Then I grep in the souce dir,but can't find anyother implementation of the AssertHeld() anymore.
So here is my question,what does the mutex_.AssertHeld() do in db/db_impl.cc? THX
As you have observed it does nothing in the default implementation. The function seems to be a placeholder for checking whether a particular thread holds a mutex and optionally abort if it doesn't. This would be equivalent to the normal asserts we use for variables but applied on mutexes.
I think the reason it is not implemented yet is we don't have an equivalent light weight function to assert whether a thread holds a lock in pthread_mutex_t used in the default implementation. Some platforms which has that capability could fill this implementation as part of porting process. Searching online I did find some implementation for this function in the windows port of leveldb. I can see one way to implement it using a wrapper class over pthread_mutex_t and setting some sort of a thread id variable to indicate which thread(s) currently holds the mutex, but it will have to be carefully implemented given the race conditions that can arise.
I am having troubles with gpio interrupt issue.
According documentation for ep93xx ports A, B, F can be configured to generate interrupts.
quote:
Any of the 19 GPIO lines maybe configured to generate interrupts
However arch/arm/march-ep93xx/gpio.c is handling only interrupts from port A. And doesn't react to port B and F.
static void ep93xx_gpio_ab_irq_handler(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc)
{
unsigned char status;
int i;
printk(KERN_INFO "ep93xx_gpio_ab_irq_handler: irq=%u", irq);
I know printk is terrible in irq_handlers.
I am configuring iterrupts via sysfs.
GPIO 0,8 are wired with Port F if it is important to issue.
Also when enabling interrupts on port B without having configured port A i get following warning:
------------[ cut here ]------------
WARNING: at drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c:103 gpio_ensure_requested+0x54/0x118()
autorequest GPIO-1
Modules linked in:
[<c002696c>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf0) from [<c00399d4>] (warn_slowpath_fmt+0x54/0x78)
[<c00399d4>] (warn_slowpath_fmt+0x54/0x78) from [<c019dd90>] (gpio_ensure_requested+0x54/0x118)
[<c019dd90>] (gpio_ensure_requested+0x54/0x118) from [<c019e05c>] (gpio_direction_input+0xb0/0x150)
[<c019e05c>] (gpio_direction_input+0xb0/0x150) from [<c002c9a8>] (ep93xx_gpio_irq_type+0x3c/0x1d8)
[<c002c9a8>] (ep93xx_gpio_irq_type+0x3c/0x1d8) from [<c0066ad8>] (__irq_set_trigger+0x38/0x9c)
[<c0066ad8>] (__irq_set_trigger+0x38/0x9c) from [<c0066e14>] (__setup_irq+0x2d8/0x354)
[<c0066e14>] (__setup_irq+0x2d8/0x354) from [<c0066f38>] (request_threaded_irq+0xa8/0x140)
[<c0066f38>] (request_threaded_irq+0xa8/0x140) from [<c019e784>] (gpio_setup_irq+0x14c/0x260)
[<c019e784>] (gpio_setup_irq+0x14c/0x260) from [<c019ec1c>] (gpio_edge_store+0x90/0xac)
[<c019ec1c>] (gpio_edge_store+0x90/0xac) from [<c01be8fc>] (dev_attr_store+0x1c/0x28)
[<c01be8fc>] (dev_attr_store+0x1c/0x28) from [<c00e8b2c>] (sysfs_write_file+0x168/0x19c)
[<c00e8b2c>] (sysfs_write_file+0x168/0x19c) from [<c009a3d4>] (vfs_write+0xa4/0x160)
[<c009a3d4>] (vfs_write+0xa4/0x160) from [<c009a6a4>] (sys_write+0x3c/0x7c)
[<c009a6a4>] (sys_write+0x3c/0x7c) from [<c0020e40>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x2c)
---[ end trace ff56c09a294dbe68 ]---
I am using kernel version 2.6.34.14 with linux-2.6.34-ts7200_matt-6.tar.gz patch (hovewer it doesn't seem contain patches for gpio.c or gpiolib.c)
cross version:
binutils-2.23.1
gcc-4.7.3
glibc-2.17
Also i crawled through change history of gpio.c and gpiolib.c and didn't find anything that can be related to this issue.
Can someone give me and advice regarding this issue? I want interrupts on all ports (A,B,F) not just A.
There are a lot of question on this issue (and ARM irq OR interrupt). Please look at them.
We can see many changes by looking at more recent Linux 3.0 gpio.c change logs versus the 2.6.34 logs and the current version. You should be able to get the current Linux stable tree and extract these patches and back port them to your kernel. For instance, there is a bug where port C and F are swapped; I don't know if this is in your ts7200_matt variant.
Some important change sets to look at,
arm: Fold irq_set_chip/irq_set_handler
arm: Cleanup the irq namespace
arm: ep93xx: Use proper irq accessor functions
arm: ep93xx: Add basic interrupt info
ARM: ep93xx: irq_data conversion.
ARM: 5954/1: ep93xx: move gpio interrupt support to gpio.c
[ARM] 5243/1: ep93xx: bugfix, GPIO ports C and F are swapped
You may have #6, but it is worth looking at as it is basically the interrupt implementation for your controller. After about linux-3.0, your SOC's GPIO controller was moved to drivers/gpio/gpio-ep93xx.c. You may wish to look at these changes, but none seem to be related to your issue. You should be aware of structural changes to Linux. Ie, overall changes to interrupt handling and/or the generic GPIO infrastructure. A good guess is that Thomas Gleixner or Russell King will make these changes.
The patches can be extracted from a particular Linux stable tree with git format-patch b685004.. b0ec5cf1 gpio.c. This will create several patch files. Move them to your tree and apply with either git am or patch -p1. You may have to massage these files to get them to apply cleanly to your tree; if you take them all, even though they are not related to interrupt handling, you will have better luck doing this automatically. You can also look at the patch set and try to manually patch the file with a text editor.
None of this addresses your specific questions. However, it gives a path to merge changes from the latest Linux versions. Also, the previous stack overflow questions give details on the structure of the GPIO interrupt handling. Coupled with your data sheet, the Linux GPIO document, and the given change sets, you should be able to fix your own problem. Otherwise, you need someone familiar with the EP93xx and the question is fairly localized.
Note: The stack trace indicates that a GPIO is being used without a corresponding gpio_request()
. This is either a bug in the machine file or in the EP93xx GPIO interrupt handling code.
I had the same warning:
------------[ cut here ]------------
WARNING: at drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c:103 gpio_ensure_requested
From my research we have to call gpio_request_one / gpio_request, before gpio_direction_input.
It fixed the problem for me.
http://www.avrfreaks.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=99789
http://e2e.ti.com/support/embedded/linux/f/354/p/119946/427889.aspx