Topics

1

Freescale^TM MC9S12NE64 / uTasker IIC

« on: July 25, 2008, 05:42:05 AM »

Hi Mark,

I am having some trouble communicating to a custom device using IIC.  uTasker was set to slave but I couldn't receive anything but I could set uTasker to master and transmit ok.

After reading the docs I realized that receiving in slave mode is not supported. 

Is there an update that can provide general purpose master/slave read/write functionality?

Thanks.

Jamie

2

Freescale^TM MC9S12NE64 / Global Hardware Timer

« on: May 12, 2008, 01:44:06 AM »

Hi Mark,

I am trying to set up the global hardware timers for a 10ms timeout.

After playing around a bit, and checking the docs I notice that the define for MILLISEC doesn't appear to exist in the NE64 project.

When I try to set the timeout using:

uTaskerGlobalMonoTimer( (UTASK_TASK)(OWN_TASK | HARDWARE_TIMER), (DELAY_LIMIT)(0.01*SEC), E_TIMER_DO_POE );

The timer triggers only once - the delay value ends up being set to 0. ( The uTasker tick is set to the default of 34ms.)

I suspect that a correct define for the MILLISEC would fix the problem - has this value been determined for the NE64?

Thanks.

Jamie

3

Freescale^TM MC9S12NE64 / Ethernet Buffers

« on: May 09, 2008, 08:34:36 AM »

Hi Mark,

Is it possible to use only one Ethernet RX buffer?

By default uTasker has 2 RX and 1 TX buffer for a total of 3k.

We can't really decrease the size of the buffers since we are using DHCP so the only possible option that I can see is to eliminate one RX buffer.

Any other suggestions for reducing RAM? - so far I've looked through config.h and modified a few things.  I am also looking at the application RAM use to see if we can sacrifice a few things there too.

Thanks.

Jamie

4

Freescale^TM MC9S12NE64 / Lowest System Tick?

« on: February 29, 2008, 03:31:13 AM »

Hi Mark,

I see the tick resolution in v1.3 is set to 34ms.

Is there a minimum that you would recommend?  It looks like the RTI can go as low at 41us.

We have some time constraints on a scale of 10ms.  It would be nice if we could handle these within a uTasker task.

Thanks

Jamie

5

µTasker general / Filename convention documentation incorrect?

« on: February 18, 2008, 08:10:03 AM »

Hi Mark,

I noticed while trying out TFTP upload that it appears the filenames beginning with uppercase letters came before file with names beginning with lowercase letters.

This contradicts the what is stated in the document http://www.utasker.com/docs/uTasker/uTaskerFileSystem.PDF which says "The file locations count from ‘0’ to ‘9’, and then from ‘a’ to ‘z’, then from ‘A’ to ‘Z’."

From this description I would expect 'a' to follow '9' but it seemed that 'A' followed '9' with my testing... actually the problem manifested when i tried to upload a ~48k file named 'gfake.bin' and TFTP would always throw an error because there wasn't enough disk space.  When I renamed the file to "Gfake.bin" the upload could proceed to completion.

I am using uTasker v1.3 SP1 for NE64 but this doesn't seem to be a hardware specific issue.

Jamie

6

Freescale^TM MC9S12NE64 / Bootloader on NE64

« on: February 14, 2008, 06:20:24 AM »

Hi Mark,

From our email correspondence you may recall that I am required to implement a bootloader on the NE64.  I wanted to bring this discussion here for the benefit of other users.

Here is a summary of what I am trying to achieve - at the end I'll have a couple questions that will help solidify my plans.

Since the application is expected to exceed 32k, I have been provided with a SPI EEPROM (25AA512) for external storage - not the ideal case in the uTasker environment.


What I would like to do is receive an application .bin file over FTP and rather than writing to the internal file system, write the data to the EEPROM in chunks as each piece of the file is received.  Once written to EEPROM, the application would validate the application image (in EEPROM) and if all is well, reboot.

Upon reset, the bootloader runs first and checks the EEPROM for an application.  If one is found, the bootloader will erase the application stored in FLASH and copy the new application from EEPROM to FLASH.  If the copy was successful and the application in FLASH is valid, the EEPROM is erased and the device reboots.  New application runs.


The real challenge, I think, is modifying uTasker to direct the received application .bin file to EEPROM rather than the internal file system.

Mark, is my proposal possible?  Would you recommend a different way?

I know your next SP for uTasker NE64 has greater functionality for external file system support, but in my case with the EEPROM I have been given, I don't think it will help me much - is this correct?

Thanks.

Jamie.

7

Freescale^TM MC9S12NE64 / TFTP with uTasker v1.3 SP1

« on: February 12, 2008, 07:11:27 AM »

Hi,

I tried to send and receive a file via TFTP without success. 

I think I am missing something important... I have no problem with FTP.

Perhaps TFTP is not intended for general file transfers - maybe only in a bootloader?

My target board is custom hardware with the NE64 micro.  I have TCP/IP connectivity - FTP, DHCP, HTTP are all working.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.

Jamie.