C code to send AT comand and receive OK

The TMS320C5515 isn't even a chip that's supported by Keil!!

The TMS320C5515 isn't even a chip that's supported by Keil!!

i am using TMS320C5515 AND TELIT GL865 AND voltege converter txs0102
and i want to send AT commnd to telit and want to receive OK

i am using code composer studio v5 tool

and i am using following code to send at command
*****************************************************************************8
void UartTxChar(unsigned char ch) //function to transmit character
{ CSL_Status status; while (((hUart->uartRegs->LSR) & (0x0020)) != 0x0020); status = UART_write(hUart, &ch, 1, 0); if(status == CSL_SOK) { // printf("\n sent %c",ch); } else { //printf("\n Write Failed"); } //USBSTK5515_waitusec(1000); //while(command != ch );

}
void UartTxString(unsigned char *str) //function to transmit string
{

//while(*str != '\0')
{ UartTxChar(*str);
*str++;
} UartTxChar(0X0D);
UartTxChar(10);
USBSTK5515_waitusec(25000);//put it to wait for sending
USBSTK5515_waitusec(2500000);//put to wait for the ok

}
*******************************

and to receive ok i used following code
**************************************************
void uart_rxIsr(void)
{

//printf("rxc");
//UART_read(hUart,&command,1,0); command = CSL_FEXT(hUart->uartRegs->RBR,UART_RBR_DATA); //if (command == 's') //{ //
gcount = 1;

// dsp_call = 0; //}

Recv[etc] = command; for( j = 0; j<=etc; j++ ) printf("%c",Recv[j]); etc++;
} ********************
but its not working i dont no where is problem and what is it
please help me.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Keil - does it?

"i am using TMS320C5515"

Which, again, has nothing whatsoever to do with any Keil tool or product - does it?

So what are you doing on the Keil forum??

www.catb.org/.../smart-questions.html

www.catb.org/.../smart-questions.html

I generally dislike people who link "How to ask questions the smart way" on forums and on IRC.

First, it is off-putting to a new user who, upon reading the basic FAQs, finds a 20-page manual on how to ask questions the "proper" way.

Second, the main problem with HTAQTSW is it caters for no onw and is useful to no one. Why is this? Because the people who could use it most will never read it. The people who ask poorly phrased, un-researched questions just aren't going to take the time to read a treatise on how to ask questions.

The people who do take the time to read it and understand it generally already ask questions of a higher caliber than most of the masses.

Hence I always post a specific link to a particular point - in this case, "Choose your forum carefully"

I think it is better to at least hope that the OP will make some effort to read, understand & apply it - rather than just be defeatist...

"The people who ask poorly phrased, un-researched questions just aren't going to take the time to read a treatise on how to ask questions."

Go on, ummed singh - prove him wrong...?

off-putting, maybe, but referring someone to e.g. "the bible" in the serch through it the reader will, most likely, see something else and "oh, good to know".

I am not going to guess how much, but I know for sure that some of my knowledge has been acquired through the above.

Erik

I generally dislike people who link "How to ask questions the smart way" on forums and on IRC.

Given we don't see you even attempt proposing a better strategy to solve the problem, I'd have to say that's a pretty cheap statement to make.

The bible is hardly a "How to ask questions the smart way" FAQ.

but I know for sure that some of my knowledge has been acquired through the above.

You've probablu got that the wrong way around. You learnt your knowledge from the bible. Others learn from the bible. It's hardly likely that it's your knowledge in the bible, just that what you're aware of the same knowledge contained within it.

Given we don't see you even attempt proposing a better strategy to solve the problem, I'd have to say that's a pretty cheap statement to make.

I was going to write a long response to your message, but decided there is no point in throwing seeds on baren land.

To avoid the high and mighty complaint:

... barren land ...

So, again, you just sit there and be defeatist?

Do you not have a positive suggestion?

To continue the Biblical allusions, is it not worth scattering the side in the hope that some of it will fall on good ground and yield 30, 60, or even 100 fold...?

"...scattering the seed..."

So, again, you just sit there and be defeatist?

Nope. I aim to point ot the irrelevance of your actions.

Do you not have a positive suggestion?

Yes, don't waste forum space with unnecessary chatter that the hoped intended would read. Instead stick to relevance. Present diversion not included.

As I said, those who can't won't and those who can already have.

Go on, ummed singh - prove him wrong...?

How long does it take to read the text of your link and show appreciation? (I would not now be surprised to see a forged post follow).

... is it not worth scattering the side in the hope that some of it will fall on good ground and yield 30, 60, or even 100 fold...?

Judging by how much you (feel the need to) post the links to the FAQ, the figure is way less than even 30.

So, again, you just sit there and be defeatist?

Nope. I aim to point ot the irrelevance of your actions.

Which is you being defeatist. So you've just contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next. You'll have to excuse us for not awarding much credibility to your other statements, then.

I still say it's better to at least give them the opportunity to learn something, rather than just be defeatist and assume they won't.

Which is you being defeatist. So you've just contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next. You'll have to excuse us for not awarding much credibility to your other statements, then.

Well, in your case, defeatism is the best course of action. There is no point in wasting a cogent argument on those who ... there's no point in even continuing with you. Ignore mode enabled. Good bye.