This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

external irq called twice depending on optimization level

Controller: STM32F103
Compiler: ARM-MDK 4.14

I have a flow-meter connected to a portpin. I like to count on rising and falling slope. So I initialized this ext. irq to meet these requirements. The software works since a couple of weeks without any problem.

This week I recognized that the optimiziation level is accidentally set to 0. Ok, no problem, I set it to maximum level 3.

After this action the code shrunk significantly - nice!

But my flow-meter gave me values twice as high as usual.

I put some LED-switchings into the isr and could detect that every slope of the flow meter triggers the isr exactly twice.

This is my isr for EXTI Line 14

  void IHW_DfmImpulseIsr(void) {
    COUNT_iCount(COUNT_kDFMBRUEHWASSER);  //count on each slope
    EXTI_ClearITPendingBit(EXTI_Line14);
  } // IHW_DfmImpulseIsr()

I found an other thread, that the reason might be that the isr-pending-bit is not cleared in time. But where is the casual connetion to optimization level.

And the crucial question, HOW to clear pending-bit correctly? Unfortunately I could not find any commendation neither from KEIL/ARM nor from ST.

Parents

  • > Did you mean the below thread?
    > http://www.keil.com/forum/18951/

    Yepp. But finally I do not understand what's exactly happening here. And I don't like code I do not understand, not in essential functions.


    > synchronization barrier (DSB)

    This seems to be an interesting topic to get involved with. The whole behaviour is new for me haven't even heard about DSB. So I think I have to comb through the documentation once again. Thanks, helpful hint.


    > did you try the line reversal

    Yes of course. I tried this before I opended this thread. But the question was not how to solve my problem for this specific isr. I am looking for the reason whats going on to avoid this trap for good and all.

    Recapitulatory it seems that I have to engage myself with how the write-cycle is handled at Cortex M3 exactly.

    Thank you for all answers!

Reply

  • > Did you mean the below thread?
    > http://www.keil.com/forum/18951/

    Yepp. But finally I do not understand what's exactly happening here. And I don't like code I do not understand, not in essential functions.


    > synchronization barrier (DSB)

    This seems to be an interesting topic to get involved with. The whole behaviour is new for me haven't even heard about DSB. So I think I have to comb through the documentation once again. Thanks, helpful hint.


    > did you try the line reversal

    Yes of course. I tried this before I opended this thread. But the question was not how to solve my problem for this specific isr. I am looking for the reason whats going on to avoid this trap for good and all.

    Recapitulatory it seems that I have to engage myself with how the write-cycle is handled at Cortex M3 exactly.

    Thank you for all answers!

Children
  • two solutions

    1. usage of __DSB()

      void IHW_DfmImpulseIsr(void) {
        COUNT_iCount(COUNT_kDFMBRUEHWASSER);  //count on each slope
        EXTI_ClearITPendingBit(EXTI_Line14);  //clear pending bit
        __DSB();                              //make shure, pending bit is cleared before return
      } // IHW_DfmImpulseIsr()
    

    2. clear pending bit as early as possible

      void IHW_DfmImpulseIsr(void) {
        EXTI_ClearITPendingBit(EXTI_Line14);  //clear pending bit
        COUNT_iCount(COUNT_kDFMBRUEHWASSER);  //count on each slope
                                              //hope, that pending bit is already cleared :)
      } // IHW_DfmImpulseIsr()
    

    Both solutions are working correctly on my system (optimization Level 3, -O3). The first one takes approximately 100ns longer (measured).

    To be shure never get traped by this one could execute __DSB() at the end of the library function EXTI_CleareITPentdingBit().

  • My suggestion was actually a combination of both, 1. and 2. That way the execution time should not be affected as badly.

    --
    Marcus

  • > To be shure never get traped by this one could execute __DSB() at
    > the end of the library function EXTI_CleareITPentdingBit().

    That would work but remove some of the flexibility. The DSB stalls the
    processor until pending memory accesses have completed. Without an
    implicit DSB, you increase the chances that the processor has
    executed the memory access during COUNT_iCount() so the DSB doesn't
    have to wait at all.

    --
    Marcus