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

Hard fault exception using RTOS and retargetting semihosting

Hi,

I've run into a strange problem using cmsis_os (keil rtx), retargetting of semi-hosting to uart, and interrupts.

I have a simple project set up to use cmsis-rtos (importing rtx_cm4.lib) and uart rx interrupts (using the stm32f4xx hal libraries). Using microlib everything works fine, but as soon as I move to retargetting semihosting (using basically just the retarget.c file from keil) I end up in the hardfault handler.

My code for main is just:

int main()
{
  // initialise the real time kernel
  osKernelInitialize();

  // we need to initialise the hal library and set up the SystemCoreClock
  // properly
  HAL_Init();
  configure_168MHz();

  // set up the uart (with rx interrupts enabled)
  init_uart(9600);
  enable_rx_interrupt();

  // print a status message
  printf("we are alive!\r\n");

  // start everything running
  osKernelStart();
}

and I get the "we are alive!" message displayed on the uart, but as soon as I type anything into the uart window, the uart rx interrupt triggers and then dumps me into the hardfault handler. However, there isn't much information in the registers. This is what I get:

in hard fault handler
SCB->HFSR  = 0x40000000
SCB->CFSR  = 0x00000000
SCB->MMFAR = 0xe000ed34
SCB->BFAR  = 0xe000ed38

stack dump:
SP         = 0x20001d40
R0         = 0x20001730
R1         = 0x0000ffff
R2         = 0x080005ed
R3         = 0x0000000a
R12        = 0x0800425d
LR         = 0x080038ef
PC         = 0x08000ac0
PSR        = 0x21000057

So I can tell I have ended up with a forced hard fault, but the CFSR register is empty so I can't tell what caused it.

Could anybody give me any pointers here? The same code works with no rtos, and the same code works with no retargetting - just not with both rtos and retargetting!

Thanks for your time!

Alex

Parents
  • Thanks for your help!


    Would that not be the address access it is objecting too, not the instruction faulting location?

    You are right, the Keil AppNote (http://www.keil.com/appnotes/files/apnt209.pdf) says:

    "The value of SCB->BFAR indicates the memory address that caused a Bus Fault and is valid if the bit BFARVALID in the SCB->CFSR register is set."


    To be honest I think looking at the code around PC and LR would be more enlightening. And digging through the stack frame.

    I'm afraid this is about where my knowledge ends! I have never been hugely comfortable with assembly code and, although I can just about work out what each instruction is doing, I find it really difficult to fit it all together into the bigger picture! Any help you can offer here (or pointers to further reading) would be gratefully received!

    PC points to:

    0x080059F2 7895      LDRB          r5,[r2,#0x02]
    

    LR points to:

    0x08005873 01E0      LSLS          r0,r4,#7
    


    Watch for things blowing out the stack, or corrupting the content.

    How can I do this?


    Do you have code that is attempting to write to locked flash memory?

    I don't think so - all I'm doing is printf from the thread.

    Thanks again for all your help!

    Regards,

    Alex

Reply
  • Thanks for your help!


    Would that not be the address access it is objecting too, not the instruction faulting location?

    You are right, the Keil AppNote (http://www.keil.com/appnotes/files/apnt209.pdf) says:

    "The value of SCB->BFAR indicates the memory address that caused a Bus Fault and is valid if the bit BFARVALID in the SCB->CFSR register is set."


    To be honest I think looking at the code around PC and LR would be more enlightening. And digging through the stack frame.

    I'm afraid this is about where my knowledge ends! I have never been hugely comfortable with assembly code and, although I can just about work out what each instruction is doing, I find it really difficult to fit it all together into the bigger picture! Any help you can offer here (or pointers to further reading) would be gratefully received!

    PC points to:

    0x080059F2 7895      LDRB          r5,[r2,#0x02]
    

    LR points to:

    0x08005873 01E0      LSLS          r0,r4,#7
    


    Watch for things blowing out the stack, or corrupting the content.

    How can I do this?


    Do you have code that is attempting to write to locked flash memory?

    I don't think so - all I'm doing is printf from the thread.

    Thanks again for all your help!

    Regards,

    Alex

Children
  • You'd want to look *around* the PC address, perhaps a couple of instructions prior. The PC points to the next instruction after the failing one, and stuff that's in write buffers can be queued from even earlier instructions.

    ie before and including 0x080059F2

    For the stack you'd want a clear understanding of the size and usage. Keil by default creates a 1KB stack which typically inadequate for most use cases, especially if stack hogs like printf/scanf are used. Fill the stack allocation with a fixed, non-zero character, that you can recognize when you display memory in the debugger, or code that walks the stack frame to determine maximal depth.

  • Thanks for your help and patience!

    I tried increasing the stack size to 5Kb, but this didn't make any difference. However, I thought that each thread had its own stack? In the debugger "system and thread viewer" window, there is some information about the stack load of each thread and nothing is above 32%.

    The instructions immediately around 0x080059F2 are:

    0x080059E6 2301      MOVS          r3,#0x01
    0x080059E8 788C      LDRB          r4,[r1,#0x02]
    0x080059EA E000      B             0x080059EE
    0x080059EC 4610      MOV           r0,r2
    0x080059EE 6842      LDR           r2,[r0,#0x04]
    0x080059F0 B112      CBZ           r2,0x080059F8
    0x080059F2 7895      LDRB          r5,[r2,#0x02]
    0x080059F4 42A5      CMP           r5,r4
    

    but these don't mean anything to me I'm afraid :~(

    I haven't yet tried your suggestion of filling the stack allocation with a fixed, non-zero character - I will try to find time for that tomorrow - but I'm pretty sure that I'm not just overflowing the stack (otherwise I would have thought that increasing the stack size by 5 times would have produced a different error at least!).

    Again = thanks for all your time!

    Regards,

    Alex