Maple hardware / software test configuration

LeafLabs Garden » Support » Maple Hardware Support

Maple hardware / software test configuration

(25 posts) (6 voices)

Started 4 years ago by StephenFromNYC
Latest reply from StephenFromNYC

12 Next »

StephenFromNYC
Moderator

Hello-

I do not know how the Arduino development team beta-tested each software release after they just started (Arduino 003 was release in January 2006 and in after just four years they released Arduino 0022) to be sure code developed using older releases still worked with newer software releases. Today, I am guessing there are enough Arduino users around the world that if a bug is not caught internally before an official software release that the problem will be caught by one of the many users within hours/days of a new software release.

In a previous post I asked if there was an official suite of sketches (beyond the "examples") which are used to test the Maple software. I was hoping there is a central repository where users could see when previous bugs were reported (by end users and also by LeafLabs staff) and how/when they were solved. I thought this would be a good resource for new Maple users who are curious about the reliability/robustness of specific functions (such as SerialUSB.print() or PWM functions).

For example, new users who purchased a Maple just after Maple 0.0.9 was released may have been discouraged, if they were assuming the PWM functions were working. User crenn, recently reported a problem with PWM in a recent post. The simple code reported by crenn works under Maple 0.0.8, but not 0.0.9. 0.0.9 was released on December 16, 2010. It is now the middle of March, 2011. It has taken about three months to discover that something in the PWM software is broken.

If changes need to be made in the examples (ported from the Arduino project), I suggest that the original Arduino code which needs to be changed for compatibility be converted to comments and not deleted. This will show Maple users how they need to change their Arduino code to work with Maple boards. Multiple real-life examples are always welcomed supplements to the abstract "how to convert Arduino code to Maple code" descriptions.

I think the above post can be summarized in two brief questions:

Question 1: How thoroughly is old working code tested with each software release?

Question 2: Is there a single hardware configuration (eg. with PWM input/output, ADC input/output, etc.) which can become an official/standard test setup (and described in the official documentation)?

Many thanks!

Stephen from NYC

Posted 4 years ago #
crenn
Moderator

Part of the reason why it took me 'so long' to get the bug uncovered, was the fact that I wasn't working on the Maple during December and Early January, and when I started working on it again, I didn't need PWM at that time, also I was still working with v0.0.8 since I hadn't gotten v0.0.9 when it was released. I discovered the bug when I needed to hold a servo in place while we tested controlling a motor over a bluetooth serial link, and I discovered it using the snapshot posted last month.

EDIT: Also, I can post some guides on converting from 'Arduino code' to 'Maple code' since it's something I regularly have to do on my project. My project partner works on an Arduino while I work on a Maple. So when he needs code from me, I have to do some little changes to get it working, same with if he gives me code.

Posted 4 years ago #
StephenFromNYC
Moderator

Hello,

My original post was not intended to blame users (for example, crenn) for not discovering bugs in the current and future IDE releases. Many changes have been made to the IDE since 0.0.9 was released, and I am surprised that the PWM functions were not tested by the LeafLabs team during the last three months.

I appreciate that developing new features and new boards is exciting for members of the LeafLabs team. Testing code for compatibility is boring, but very important. I do not know if the LeafLabs team can find an undergraduate student who is willing to do your code testing to make a few bucks.

My original post was to encourage the LeafLabs team to assemble a standard hardware test configuration which they can use to say "the current IDE release X.X.X has been tested using our standard test sketch using our hardware test configuration described on page blah.html and the current IDE passes all tests".

Now that I think about it more, several hardware test configurations will be needed because some pins can be used for both input and output.

It surprises me that crenn is the only user who uses PWM. This is my conclusion since if another user had found a problem we would have heard about it on the forums. Sometimes I wonder if I am the only user who is interested in fast SerialUSB.print() related functions.

Thanks!

Stephen from NYC

Posted 4 years ago #
redfox74
Member

Hi Stephen ,
what kind of problem do you have on PWM ?
I test it and work fine , on Maple Board V5 that i recived 2 month ago and on Multipilot32 that use a version for native code ... I think that leaflab .. need some help .. they are doing a great work :) Avr micro is very simple micro respect of arm :)
Best
Roberto

Posted 4 years ago #
redfox74
Member

The Skecth for testing hardware is introduced only in revision 022 on arduino.
Use FTDI as doing in arduino if you need now more fast SerialUSB ... is not so simple put the hand in that driver ... the code is open source so you can to help to solve this iusse :)
Best
Roberto

Posted 4 years ago #
crenn
Moderator

Redfox74, Stephen isn't having problems with PWM, I am. I've made a thread about it here: http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=683. The problem in summary is I'm not getting a signal out of the pin I'm using. However I've only tried that one pin and timer, so it may be working on other timers, I'll have to investigate that tomorrow.

Stephen, from my understanding, they were focusing on getting SerialUSB to be working well, and since PWM was working well, I guess they didn't need to test PWM.

Heh, I'll do testing if they give me more hardware to test with! (Such as a Maple Mini! ;) ) At this present time, I'm not that interested in Fast SerialUSB.print functions, however depending on how my project works, I will suddenly be very interested. I'm currently hoping that when my robot starts to fly, it will only be a Maple Mini as the brains. However depending on things, it might be a 2nd micro controller as the brains, and a Maple Mini as a smart IO device.

Posted 4 years ago #
redfox74
Member

What kind of robot are you developing ? I'm testing other function on native version i found other strange bugs , but is'nt a problem try to solve without success :(
So' my proble is that Serial4 work in output but in input don't recive ... the micro stop to work i think that there're some problem on register allocation ...do you have some idea ?
Best
Roberto

Posted 4 years ago #
redfox74
Member

I think that i found the problem on Serial4 uart4 . I verified the file libcs3-lanchon-stm32.tar.gz ... I think that it was the source of lib linked to libmaple project and inside there isn't the UART4_IRQ_HANDLER :(
I see the note in the code .. that told .. i had to verify if in disasembled is correct the handler .. the handler there isn't :(
How i can modify ?
Best
Roberto

Posted 4 years ago #
anton
Member

Roberto look in
https://github.com/leaflabs/libmaple/tree/0.0.9-maintenance/support/ld
I have similar problem with Serial2 in i2c-wip brunch.

Posted 4 years ago #
redfox74
Member

Hi anton,
yes that is the file , if you see in the root there're a lib that contain the mapping of interrupt , if you unzip the code is more clear. But the problem is that is an old revision and after the support of maple native is not yet implemented the code for the other interrupt available on high densiti micro as the micro normaly used in maple native . So i think that this library could have some problem when a interrupt is enable and is not supported by lib. In my test the firmware stop to work .. !!!! But that is normally :) So i can try to update that library with right extention and redoing my test ...
Best
Roberto

Posted 4 years ago #
anton
Member

I see.
May be https://github.com/leaflabs/libmaple/tree/refactor/support/ld is new version?

Posted 4 years ago #
redfox74
Member

Hi Anton,
thank you very much , yes that is right ... :) Thank you guys .. :)

Posted 4 years ago #
redfox74
Member

Hi try , the impression is that all it's ok but .. on my board work fine only serial 1
serial2 don't work , serial3 ,too serial4 work in output , but not in input :(
If i use chibiOS instead work fine serial1 , serial2 , serial4 , so i think that isn't an hardware problem serial3 , i think could be remapped :)
Best
Roberto

Posted 4 years ago #
StephenFromNYC
Moderator

Hello-

I am a big fan of the LeafLab boards and I will continue to spend my time developing code which can use their 32-bit microcontroller products. The enhanced features of the STM chips (eg. DMA, 12-bit ADC, faster processor speed, wider bus, etc) are enough to make me be patient for the Maple to succeed. I am new to microcontrollers, so I cannot comment on the complexity caused by switching from 8-bit to 32-bit, but with the faster clock speed it does not sound trivial.

My words were intended to be more of a request/suggestion and less of a criticism. I believe it is important to test the official major software releases with as much old code as possible. Although testing is boring it needs to be an integral and scheduled part of any software/hardware development. The LeafLabs team wants to run as soon as possible, but it is important to avoid stumbling during the first few steps.

I had assumed all software/hardware companies (including LeafLabs) had an internal hardware test configuration which they were using. I am hoping they are using the "scientific method" (make a small change in software; keep the hardware configuration the same; and look for changes in the expected behavior).

I do not know how many square feet the LeafLabs group occupies (or if lab space is tight), but I assumed they always had one Maple with its input pins wired up, another Maple with its output pins wired up, etc. With the different boards (currently maple rev 1/3/5 and mini) testing may become more complex. One way to reduce the amount of "daily testing" is to says which board is currently the default board for daily testing at LeafLabs (eg. Maple Revision 5). However, before every software release as many older boards as possible should be tested (and if a board is not tested before a major software is released a clear statement should be made in the software documentation).

I am not asking that full testing should be done before a snapshot is released. Snapshots and alpha releases are for users who need new functionality which does not exist in an earlier version. However, snapshots and alpha releases are used with the understanding that they may have problems. For example, I am using the git-e938d1765a snapshot from February, 2011 (on a Windows XP system), because the snapshot has a version of SerialUSB.print() which currently works well enough for my projects. In release 0.0.9 and earlier, the version of SerialUSB.print() does not work well for rapid communications.

The reason I said I wonder if I am the only user who is interested in fast SerialUSB.print() related functions, because it has been two days since I posted USB Observations and Questions: Part I and so far no responses.

Roberto (user redfox), thank you for the info about the hardware test sketch which appeared with Arduino revision 022. As I said in an earlier post, I do not think the Arduino platform with its large number of users needs an official hardware test configuration. Arduino users will quickly find the bugs. Although I hope the number of Maple/32-bit microcontroller users will increase I am surprised the PWM/timer problem described by crenn was not caught earlier.

The PWM/timer code described by crenn is very simple and works with 0.0.8), so my assumption is that the problem must be in the 0.0.9 software. Maybe this is a good place to say that I have never used PWM, but that I have played a little with interrupts (and SerialUSB.print()). In their development of SerialUSB.print() for release 0.0.9 I am guessing a change was made in the timers/interrupts which broke crenn's code.

Honestly, it is not clear to me why most users find microcontroller boards such as Maple/Arduino useful. Are most users developing independent robots which do not need to be connected to a laptop/desktop? Are most users developing large programs which occupy most of the microcontroller's memory and then disconnect the USB cable after the sketch uploads (thus requiring an external power source)? I am interested in using microcontroller boards such as Maple/Arduino to connect my computer to the external world. I am interested in sensors and ADC (and eventually, in PWM).

crenn, I am glad the software updates which result from my interest in fast and reliable SerialUSB.print() and SerialUSB.read() communications might help your robot project.

I had assumed the non-LeafLabs members who were promoted to forum moderators were also given boards to "evaluate". The time these non-LeafLabs members (in particular crenn and gbulmer) have donated to the forums providing help is trivial to the cost of a board or two.

Thanks!

Stephen from NYC

Posted 4 years ago #
gbulmer
Moderator

Stephen - I bought my Maple.

I think we are on 'the same page'.

When I experienced the Arduino, I was very impressed, but felt there were a few hardware/peripheral improvement I needed. I am interested in both robotics, and stand-alone applications, but also extending computing into the physical realm. For example, I designed the original board, and wrote the original firmware for the SenseBoard used on this OU coarse, TU100 http://mcs.open.ac.uk/akb235/pub_filexfer/tu100_flier.pdf which is an extension to Scratch into the physical world.

I am very passionate about "the next Arduino", and Cortex-M3 (along with, maybe PIC32) is the lowest level 'sane' device that I saw as a significant improvement, while being in the same ball-park of cost and complexity (vs Arduino Mega).

One of the aspects that impressed me from the start of using the Arduino was the quality of the software. Even when it is lacking in features, or a bit slow, or restricted, it works. The library ('language') is very easy to use. I much prefer simple and robust, over fast or fancy but flakey.

I think you have raised a critical issue if Maple is to be as low-pain as Arduino.
The Maple software must be thoroughly and consistently tested, and regressions prevented. By that I mean whenever a regression is detected, tests need to be built to prevent the bug from going unnoticed.

I'd prefer to have a way to test my code without a need to have many versions of the board. I would like a 'symmetric' development community; by that I mean we should all be able to work on a similar basis, without the need to buy lots of hardware.

One of the reasons I posted asking for anyone with Cortex-M3 simulator or emulator experience (http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=675) is I think that may be a good way to create a practical and better test environment.

A simulator/emulator isn't perfect, but if we all have access to a reasonable Open Source test platform, then we can all work in a comparable way. Then we can have a high degree of confidence that we can collaborate effectively, including contributing 'unit tests'. I'm assuming with the extra observe-ability of a simulator/emulator, building automated tests should be easier and more effective.

Maybe other folks will contribute their approaches to embedded system testing?

Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.