2 Replies Latest reply on Oct 8, 2017 11:47 AM by piotr.wyderski_2406846

    DFB does not work, but simulates correctly

    piotr.wyderski_2406846

      I have invested considerable amount of time in creating a DFB program intended to perform input streams' preprocessing. Because the default DFB simulator (v1.4) is next to useless, the development of this code required downgrade of PSocCreator version 4.1 to 2.2, because it is the last version that is able to run Chris Keeser's extended simulator, which at least shows you something. Cypress support didn't make my task easier either: all four of my recent bug reports have been marked as "Cancelled", despite the attached snippets which show direct violation of the DFB specification. They replied with their default "go away" message, that is they told me to

      go to the community forum, as if the community members had access to the simulator sources or could adjust the misleading/strikingly wrong documentation. I don't know the reason for this hostility, but if its intended to repel customers, it surely works like a charm.

       

      But to the point: the attached project has the "DSP" page, which contains a DFB instance together with ts program. It is fed by two DMA channels and the results are collected by another two. The exact input values are irrelevant, the problem is at the control flow level, not with incorrectly computed results. All four DMA channels work correctly, checked that with a few stage->hold forwarding snippets. This is all what main.c does: configure the testing environment and lets me see the debug signals on the scope. The code simulates well on both simulators (i.e. the DFB assembler 1.4's and Keeser's) and the obtained results are in full agreement with the C++ reference implementation. On a real chip it is an epic disaster. The DFB program is composed of two independent calculation engines, but finally they all boil down to the same task: compute a sequence of 3 4th order CIC filters, each decimating by 4. So the combined decimation factor is exactly 64. To cut the hardness by at least a half, I bypassed the 'monitoring' part, but even the much simpler SDR part is broken. The obvious sign of correctness would be the the frequency of the output DMA transfers: for 310,000 input samples per second the output should be 64 times less, i.e. 4843.75 samples per second. The scope shows 40..50kHz with no obvious pattern. Despite its name, the DFB ALU lacks any logical instructions, so the combined "to 64" counter is implemented as a packed array of 3 2-bit counters updated in a complex delta/compensator way. I've reused one of the semaphores to check how often the csb_cic_comb_integrate state is visited. Far too often. The desired scenario is as follows: enter csa_sdr_process_data 310e3 times per second, then go to csb_cic_comb_integrate every fourth cycle on each of the I/Q paths, which translates into two subsequent visits after each 8 input samples, because each path has a dedicated CIC filter. And then go further and move to the higher CIC level after every fourth of the already filtered fourth cycles, i.e. once per 16 cycles, then once per 64, then store the result in holdb. It was designed this way and this is what happens on the simulator.

      I was trying to figure out what is going wrong this time with the Cypress tools, but ran out of steam. I'm at the verge of throwing the entire PSOC adventure to the dustbin and switching to the much better specified XIlinx Zynq family, but I regret all the spent time and money, so could you please have a look at the attached project and try to guess where the physical implementation of DFB diverges with its specification so strikingly that my code becomes useless?

        • 1. Re: DFB does not work, but simulates correctly
          user_264156242

          Sorry to hear your having troubles with this. I downloaded your project and had a look, and even though this looks to me like quite advanced and probably beyond my understanding i did try and work my way through it. Now this may seem as a stupid suggestion but one thing stood out as a possible querk. I had a project where if i enabled the 'Halt on XTAL startup error' my project would not work. Seems worth a try as its only a tick in a box.

           

          Hope you figure it out.

          • 2. Re: DFB does not work, but simulates correctly
            piotr.wyderski_2406846

            Thank you for your input. You're right that there are several minor issues with this project, but it is just meant to accept working "organs" from an earlier, dead project which has already failed and hence shown that if there is a way to do it on PSOC5LP at all, it leads through the DFB coprocessor. The main ARM core would just not be real-time enough. This turned out to be the correct approach, if I may say so, because I've wasted "just" a month to develop the DFB program first, no big surprise waiting for me till the very end.

             

            I had exactly the same issue with 'Halt on XTAL startup error' earlier, but it's not a problem here (yet). If DFB cannot do what it should be able to do/already does according to the documentation and the simulator, there is no point in continuing with the PSOC family at all and switch ASAP to something that conforms to its own specification and actually is supported by a competent crew of engineers. If you allow the people like Budlong or Keeser to leave, here come your results.

             

            Cypress was kind enough to assign an Application Engineer to this issue, but, frankly, I don't expect much success. I've just sent them four more simplified DFB programs, which should simply forward the channel B input to the output (subtracting an unimportant constant in between, but we're talking about totally wrong control flow patterns, not about the luxurious wrong results on the correct paths case...).

            They all work wrong, but by inserting more and more nops [that is, acu(hold, hold) dmux(sa, sa) alu(hold) mac(hold)] the output channel DMA DRQ frequency, tied to holdB... rises. Let them first explain this. But when you ask the simulator... Mharharhar :-D This software is so unbelievalby broken... Downloading Vivado.