FreeRTOS Support Archive
The FreeRTOS support forum is used to obtain active support directly from Real
Time Engineers Ltd. In return for using our top quality software and services for
free, we request you play fair and do your bit to help others too! Sign up
to receive notifications of new support topics then help where you can.
This is a read only archive of threads posted to the FreeRTOS support forum.
The archive is updated every week, so will not always contain the very latest posts.
Use these archive pages to search previous posts. Use the Live FreeRTOS Forum
link to reply to a post, or start a new support thread.
[FreeRTOS Home] [Live FreeRTOS Forum] [FAQ] [Archive Top] [September 2015 Threads] FreeRTOS tasks can interrupt USB stack implementation?Posted by ddudas on September 24, 2015 Hi all,
I'm using ST's CubeMX implementation on a F4 discovery board. I use ST's USB middlewares with FreeRTOS.
When I get a special OutputReport from PC side I have to answer nearly immediately (in 10-15 ms). Currently I cannot achieve this timing and it seems my high priority tasks can interrupt the USB callback. What do you think, is it possible? Because it's generated code I'm not sure but can I increase the priority of the USB interrupt (if there is any)?
Thank you,
David
FreeRTOS tasks can interrupt USB stack implementation?Posted by rtel on September 24, 2015 10 to 15 ms is very slow, so I'm sure its possible.
Where is the USB callback function called from? If it is an interrupt then it cannot be interrupted by high priority RTOS tasks. Any non interrupt code (whether you are using an RTOS or not) can only run if no interrupts are running.
Without knowing the control flow in your application its hard to know what to suggest. How is the OutputReport communicated to you? By an interrupt, a message from another task, or some other way?
FreeRTOS tasks can interrupt USB stack implementation?Posted by ddudas on September 24, 2015 The callback which receive the data from PC is called from the OTGFSIRQHandler (it's the part of the HALPCDIRQHandler function). I think the problem is SysTickHandler's priority is higher than OTGFSIRQHandler and it's cannot be modified, but the scheduler shouldn't interrupt the OTGFSIRQHandler with any task handled by the scheduler. Am I wrong that the scheduler can interrupt the OTGFS_IRQHandler?
FreeRTOS tasks can interrupt USB stack implementation?Posted by rtel on September 24, 2015 It looks like you’re trying to clean up a specific search result or title into a more professional or user-friendly format. Depending on how you plan to use it, here are a few ways to "draft" that piece: Option 1: Cleaned-up Title (For a playlist or file)
"Download the latest MP3s from on MuzicaHot . Get high-quality audio files and the newest hits quickly and easily. Stream or download your favorite tracks today." Option 3: Casual Social Media Post
"Just found a fresh track over on MuzicaHot ! 🎧 If you're looking for the MP3 download, check it out here. The quality is top-notch." A Quick Tip on "MuzicaHot"
The characters – in your subject line are actually a common encoding error (usually representing a long dash "—"). When drafting your final version, be sure to replace those symbols with a standard hyphen or dash to keep it looking professional. Which specific track or artist
(Note: If "DMC" refers to the artist, it’s best to include the actual song title after the dash.) Option 2: Website Meta Description (SEO Friendly)
FreeRTOS tasks can interrupt USB stack implementation?Posted by ddudas on September 24, 2015 Thank you for the answer, I think I'm a bit confused with the Cortex ISR priorities :-)
What I can observe is if I use a much higher osDelay in my high priority task I can respond for the received USB message much faster. This is why I think tasks can mess up with my OTG interrupt.
Copyright (C) Amazon Web Services, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
|