I would like to use dbus to signal other instances of the same family of applications.
It seems that to issue a signal I must execute a g_bus_own_name, emit the signal when the name is acquired, then g_bus_unown_name.
This seems like a bit of palava just to send a signal.
When the name is acquired, another instance of the application will hang waiting for this instance to 'unown' the name.
The deprecated way of dbus_message_new_signal/dbus_connection_send was much more straight forward.
Is there a simpler way to send the signal (without owning the name).
Yes, as Michael K says, use g_dbus_connection_emit_signal(). You only have to own a well-known name if you want other users of the bus to be able to address your application by that well-known name, rather than a unique name which changes every time you connect to the bus.
Related
I have a system with multiple subsystems communicating with CANOpen. There is a main unit with a screen (for men-machine interface and stuff) and sub-units for minor operations(like sample button status, manage power, take measurements...).
We defined a CANOpen based communication protocol for this system. Subsystems share their conditions periodically with TPDO messages and do stuff according to main unit's commands sent with RPDO messages. And also some NMTs are in use too.
So I've been asked to add a new command to this protocol, zeroize. This command shall be sent broadcast and it shall cause everybody to delete softwares. What is the right way to do this?
Maybe I can use a RPDO? Are we allowed to define new NMT commands in CANopen? Maybe I can do it with NMT but by using a new commandt hat is not in use already?
Thanks in advance
Ip.
It is a bit confusing what you mean with TPDO and RPDO since the main unit's TPDO is going to be the peripheral units' RPDO and vice versa. But yes, the correct way to send out some custom broadcast message would be with a PDO.
Although, depending on what you mean with "delete software", CANopen might provide a mean for it. There are the save (OD 1010h) and load (OD 1011h) registers in the object dictionary. Save is to be used for the purpose of storing all CANopen communication (PDO configuration, mapping etc) in non-volatile memory. And load is used to restore CANopen parameters to factory defaults. These should however not be used to save/load application-specific settings.
You are not allowed to define new NMT commands.
Objects 1010h and 1011h can be used to reset the values in the object dictionary. If you really want to delete the software, the firmware upgrade protocol from CiA 302-3 might help. Writing 00h (Stop program) followed by 03h (Clear program) to object 1F51h sub-index 1 on the slave will delete the application. Whether it's actually "zeroed out" depends on the implementation. You'll need two SDO requests per slave for this though. The standard specifies that object 1F51h cannot be PDO mapped. Although that requirement may not be enforced for your devices, in which case you could achieve broadcast "zeroing" with two PDOs.
I'm writing a library and need to send a custom signal to threads, I used signal(SIGRTMIN, handler); and all works fine.
Since this is a library, I'm worried that some one who used my library will also use this SIGRTMIN, so this there any way in linux/posix_thread to get an unique SIGRTMIN id?
currently my way to solve this is to add a magic number, like SIGRTMIN + MAGIC_NUMBER to reduce the change of duplicate signals, but I wondered if there's a better solution.
There is no viable way to programmatically identify an otherwise unused signal number. Fixed signal numbers used by a library should be considered part of its API, and it is up to the library client to avoid clashes.
However, it should be possible to set up a mechanism by which the library client can register its choice of signal number with the library at runtime. That could be in the form either of an absolute number or an offset from SIGRTMIN. The client would be expected to call a function to specify the signal number, and the library could register the handler to listen for the caller-specified signal.
Note also, by the way, that you should always prefer sigaction() over signal() for registering signal handlers. Several important details of the latter's behavior are not well defined and do vary from implementation to implementation, but sigaction() allows the programmer to specify all the relevant details.
If two nodes with same name claiming same address in j1939 what will happen in this situation? will any one of node will claim address or error will occour ?
My copy of the specification is dated, but I'm sure this rule hasn't changed since 2003 (SAE J1939-81):
"Manufacturers of ECUs and integrators of networks must assure that the NAMEs of all CAs intended to
transmit on a particular network are unique."
Of course, that being said, it is of course possible to put devices with the same NAME on the
same set of wires, either through ignorance or malicious intent.
I personally haven't played with it, but in theory, if your device has the exact same NAME as another,
your address claim will exactly overlap the other, neither would be aware of the other's presence,
the message would go through successfully, and each device will assume it is the one that sent it.
I may be wrong, but I think the only thing odd an CA might see is message coming in from an address
it thought it had claimed, a problem which it may not even be checking for.
From the network standpoint, there is no way to distinguish that the nodes are different since they are identifying themselves as the same entity. What would happen is that the first requests will be addressed, and the second request will be ignored. In other words, this is race condition because only one message is processed at a time in the datalink. By the time the second node tries to claim the same address, the address table is already occupied and the late request node won't be able to get the notification that the address was assigned to it. Remember that each node has its own internal states/configuration.
J1939-81 says
"Repeated Collisions Occur, devices go BUS OFF CAs should retry using
a Pseudo-random delay before attempting to reclaim and then revert to
Figures 2 and 3."
I know that in a CAN controller if the error count reaches some threshold (say 255), bus off will occur which means that a particular CAN node will get switched off from the CAN network. So there won't be any communication at all. But what if the above said scenario happens while the car is moving which contains the ECU (includes the CAN controller)?
Is there any auto-recovery mechanism in a CAN controller to avoid any of the above situations?
During bus off, the node will be isolated.
CAN waits for the mandatory time period, 128 x 11 bits (1408 bits - 5.6 ms for a 250 kbit/s system) of time, and then tries to re-initialize the node.
Yes, if a CAN Tx error count reaches 255, a node will turn off and potentially reset itself. A good implementation will not continue resetting a node if the problem persists.
In addition to this safety mechanism, ECU's (electric control units) also time the duration between valid transmissions of the messages they expect to receive. Therefore, if the engine controller goes offline, nearly every ECU in the vehicle will report "Lost Communication with the Engine Controller."
Typically, these type of CAN problems are identified by DTC's (diagnostic trouble codes) beginning with U, like this one: http://www.obd-codes.com/u0115
Depending on the severity of the issue, the vehicle might enter a "limp home" mode, or might be totally disabled. Problems with the CAN bus on a vehicle are extremely rare, unless there has been some tampering.
The recovery mechanism depends on the software stack that's being used. Most new vehicles have AUTOSAR compliant software implementations. In the AUTOSAR communication stack, the CanSM (state manager) module has configurable BusOff Monitoring and Recovery. You can read more at http://autosar.org .
A BusOff however, is a serious situation in a running vehicle. How this is handled at the vehicle level is very specific to the system design. But, in most cases the system would go into a safe mode of operation and all parameters would take pre-set fault values to let the vehicle run with a reduced functionality. You would see the warning lamps on the dash go off to alert the driver. ECUs typically comply with some level of ASIL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_Safety_Integrity_Level) standard. This makes sure that such situations are thought of and taken care of during design and development.
Nothing spectacular will happen, even if the Engine Control Unit looses CAN communication. The car will continue running.
When bus-off occurs, the CAN network isolates that node and then resets that node which can able to start communication.
As you mentioned, after reaching a specific error count, that node gets disconnected/prohibited from transmitting anything on the bus. This is a description for the bus side.
On the controller side, every CAN controller generates an interrupt on BUS_OFF. It is the controller's responsibility that it should reset the CAN controller and bring it back to the normal state.
This is strictly followed for every CAN controller in any car. And this all happens in a few milliseconds... So for the driver, nothing happens!
When the ECU detects a BUS_OFF fault, the ECU should stop its emissions so this is a good question to ask.
There is an auto-recovery mechanism:
For the first three detections, the CAN controller resets its registers without a delay
For the next detections, the ECU waits 1 second before the reset
There is something called limp-home mode for the cars. That is the condition when all the ECUs fail in the car network. Then a set of default parameters for the ECUs are initialized and then the system, i.e., your car can continue running only for some time before it is properly serviced by the OEM.
I know this is an old thread, but the answers are a bit different from the situation I have observed, in relation to the OP question.
From experience, I'm have an issue where my ECU stops communicating with the diagnostic tools while the engine is running, apparantly it has entered the CAN off state. The only reason I know is I have a OBD 2 plug in monitor for engine parameters. I don't get ANY DTC, well most of the time anyways.. sometimes I get DTCs that are not applicable to my vehcile, and some U codes.
That said, the vehicle continues to run just fine, and if I didn't have the plug-in monitor, I would have no idea there was a problem! I'm now pretty sure the ECU for the Engine is having communication problems, and hitting the error counter and shutting off, it's the only thing that makes sense. I checked the CAN signals with a 2 channel O-scope, and they are a bit noisy compared to one of my other cars, so my next step is to swap the ECU and see if that fixes it. I already swapped out the TIPM (Total Integrated Power Module), it serves as a router of sorts between the 2 CAN networks, to the OBD2 port. That apparantly wasn't it.
if a CAN Tx or RX error counter reaches 255 , the node will turn off and be isolated
What happens if a bus-off error occurs in a CAN controller while a car is in motion?
1)HARD SWAPPING can be done in can network.
eg: Assume four(4) nodes(ECUS) are connected in can bus network.if we disconnected one
ecus then also can bus works properly.
2)In BUSS OFF condition it can hear every signal on the bus network but it cant transmit
mssgs(signal). If the car in motion or in rest position.
eg: Ecus(ABS) are using for better performance but actual work is done by actuator(DISK BRAKE).
I have event manager process that dispatches events to subscribers (e.g. http_session_created, http_sesssion_destroyed). If Pid is used instead of named process, I must put it into functions to operate with event manager but if Named process is used, code will be more clear.
Which variant is right?
Thank you!
While there is no actual difference to the process naming a process, registering it, makes it global. You in essence you are telling the system that here is a global service which anyone can use.
From you description it more sounds like you are giving them names to save the, small, effort of carrying them around in your loop. If this is the case I would put their pids in a record with all the other state data you carry around. This much better indicates the type of the processes.
If you have a fixed set of "subscriber" processes, then use registered names IMO.
If, on the contrary, you have a publish/subscribe sort of architecture where subscribers come and go, then you need an infrastructure to track those and from this point it doesn't really matter if you use Pid() or names.
One of the drawbacks of using registered names is that you need to track them in your code base to avoid "collisions". So it is up to you: personally, I tend to favor named processes as, like you say, it makes reading the code clearer. One way or another, OTP doesn't care.