For communication between devices, for example in automotive applications, various protocols are used. One protocol frequently employed is the SENT protocol (single edge nibble transmission). This protocol may for example be used in applications where high resolution data is transmitted for example from a sensor device to an electronic control unit (ECU).
The SPC protocol (short PWM code; PWM meaning pulse width modulation) is an extension of the SENT protocol and aims at increasing performance of a communication link and reducing system costs at the same time. To some extent, SPC allows bidirectional communication and is an example of an edge based PWM protocol. For example, SPC may introduce a half-duplex synchronous communication. A receiver (e.g. master) generates for example a master trigger pulse on a communication line by pulling it low for a defined amount of time. The pulse width (corresponding to the defined amount of time) is measured by a transmitter (e.g. slave), for example a sensor, and a transmission, e.g. a SENT transmission, is initiated only if the pulse width is within a defined limit. The SPC protocol allows choosing between various protocol modes. For example, a synchronous mode, a synchronous mode with range selection or a synchronous transmission with ID selection, where up to four sensors may be connected in parallel to an ECU, may be used. In the latter case, the pulse width of the above-mentioned trigger pulse may define which sensor or other entity will start a transmission. For example, a length of the trigger pulse may indicate an ID of a sensor or other slave device selected for transmission. The sensor or other entity may start the transmission with its own synchronization, which may overlap data pulses.
Conventionally, in the SPC protocol following a master request no feedback has been given. For example, when a master (for example ECU) triggers a slave (for example sensor) with an ID (for example via pulse width), the master, based on a reply alone, could not be sure if indeed the correct slave has responded. Similar considerations apply in a point-to-point transmission with using an area switching or other switching between sectors, zones, ranges, or regions based on a master request. In some implementations, bits in a data frame have been used for giving feedback. This uses bandwidth which otherwise could be used for data transmission.
In other circumstances, a master may not be sure that data transmitted are up to date or if always the same information is transmitted (which apart from a transmission without request is a possible additional error mode of this general problem, which is also known as “Babbling Idiot”).
In the following, various embodiments will be described in detail referring to the attached drawings. The embodiments are to be regarded as illustrative examples only and are not to be construed as limiting. For example, while embodiments may be described as comprising a plurality of features or elements, in other embodiments some of these features or elements may be omitted, and/or replaced by alternative features or elements. In yet other embodiments, additional features or elements may be provided.
Any connections or couplings shown in the drawings or described herein may be implemented as direct connections or couplings, i.e. connections or couplings without intervening elements, or indirect connections or couplings, i.e. connections or couplings with one or more intervening elements, as long as the general purpose of the connection or coupling, for example to transmit a certain kind of signal and/or to transmit a certain kind of information, is essentially maintained. Connections or couplings may be wire-based connections or couplings or may also be wireless connections or couplings unless noted otherwise.
Furthermore, features from different embodiments may be combined to form additional embodiments.
In embodiments, an extension to the SPC protocol is proposed. However, these extensions may also be applicable to other communication protocols, for example bidirectional edge-based PWM (pulse width modulation) communication protocols.
In some embodiments, bits conventionally used for transmitting information like feedback to a communication device like a master may be used to transmit payload data, and information/feedback to the master or other communication device in some embodiments may be encoded for example in a checksum, i.e. used for calculation of the checksum. A checksum as used herein may refer to information, for example redundant information, calculated on the basis of other data including data to be sent. At a receiver, based on received data and received checksum it may be possible to detect transmission error. An example for a checksum in this sense is a CRC (cyclic redundancy check) or any other redundant information which may be used to check data integrity. Furthermore, in some embodiments information may be transmitted to keep a timing information (also referred to as date) up to date.
In some embodiments, by encoding a feedback or other information in a checksum no separate transmission of a feedback to a communication device like a master, for example a confirmation, is necessary.
In some embodiments, a method may be provided, comprising: communicating between a slave and a master, and including a feedback from a slave to a master in a checksum.
In some embodiments, the feedback may comprise an identification of the slave.
In some embodiments, the feedback may comprises a counter value.
In some embodiments, the counter value may be a rolling counter value.
In some embodiments, the method may further comprise setting the counter value to a defined value after a transmission error has been detected.
In some embodiments setting the counter value to a defined value may comprise sending a dedicated trigger pulse from a master to at least one slave, and setting the counter value in response to the trigger pulse.
In some embodiments, the dedicated trigger pulse may correspond to an unused identification.
In some embodiments, setting the counter value to a defined value may comprise omitting a trigger signal form the master to at least one slave, and setting the counter in response to detecting the omission of the trigger pulse.
In some embodiments, the method may further comprise trying different counter values after a transmission error to determine a current counter value.
In some embodiments, the master may comprise a control unit.
In some embodiments, the slave may comprise a sensor.
In some embodiments, master and slave may communicate on the basis of an SPC protocol.
In some embodiments, a device may be provided, adapted to carry out at least one of the methods described above.
In some embodiments, the device may be a master device or may bea slave device.
In some embodiments, the above described methods may be implemented in a communication system.
In
In other embodiments, as illustrated in
When communicating for example according to an SPC protocol, controller 22 may transmit a request signal that is received by the first and second sensors 24 and 26 via data line 25. The request signal may include a trigger signal and/or a sensor identification signal, which selects one of the first and second sensors 24 and 26. In addition, a remainder of the request signal may include any other commands and/or data to be transmitted to the selected sensor. For example, the trigger signal may be a pulse where controller 22 via transistor 21 pulls data line 25 to ground, a duration of the pulse indicating an ID of the sensor. In other embodiments current pulses or other electrical quantities may be used to achieve the same functionality.
The first and second sensors 24 and 26 receive the request signal including the trigger signal and the sensor identification signal. One of the first and second sensors 24 and 26 is selected via the sensor identification signal, for example encoded in a pulse width, pulse height or other, and the selected sensor transmits a reply signal via data line 28.
In
At 30, the method of
Following receipt of the trigger pulse, data is sent together with a checksum like a cyclic redundancy check. At 31, the method of
Concepts of including information in a checksum as discussed above will now be illustrated further referring to
In
As indicated at 43, the two-bit ID value of the receiving slave device may be combined with two 0s (see 43 of
Following the trigger pulse, as indicated by a curve portion 44 the slave device responds with a sync pulse, and various values SCN, D1 to D3 and a rolling counter (RC) value which are examples for sent data values, followed by a cyclic redundancy check CRC 45 as an example for a checksum. In an SPC system, these data values and the CRC may be four-bit values. In other embodiments, other bit widths may be used. The transmission by the slave device is terminated by a pause pulse, as indicated in
The rolling counter RC may be a four-bit value which is increased by one bit every time the respective slave device sends data terminating with a pause pulse. In the example of
As will be explained later in more detail, when the receiving entity, for example a master device, receives the data, it includes the expected ID (corresponding to the ID indicated by the trigger pulse it sent) in its own checksum calculation, e.g. CRC calculation. If the checksum calculation does not match with the data received (including the expected ID), the master device then knows that either the data has been received incorrectly, the CRC has been received incorrectly or the ID is wrong, which may for example happen if a “wrong” slave device responds to the trigger pulse (for example due to an incorrect decoding of the trigger pulse, for example assuming that the trigger pulse indicates an ID of 01 when it actually was intended to indicate an ID of 00 etc.).
In the example of
A trigger pulse 50 of
Generally, the technique of encoding information or feedback in the checksum may be used for any kind of information which is usually held consistent between transmitter and receiver, i.e. where the receiver knows the expected value. For example, the information may be independently determined at transmitter and receiver according to a predefined scheme. An example for such a predefined scheme is a counter like a rolling counter (e.g. as mentioned above) which increases e.g. in regular intervals or upon specific events like sending or receiving of data. In this case, in embodiments it may not be necessary to explicitly send such information, but it may be sufficient to include the information only in the checksum to be able to detect cases where the information is not consistent anymore.
It should be noted that in
As already mentioned, at a receiver side, for example a master side, like receiver 11 of
At 60, the method of
In some embodiments, at 62 the indicated reset may also indicate to the slave device(s) that the last data sent should be transmitted again, as it may have been transmitted erroneously.
It should be noted that in yet other embodiments, a reset of the counter may be unnecessary, for example in embodiments where slave and master have a common time base and the counter is based on the time base.
In the following, some possibilities of indicating a reset in an SPC system or other bidirectional edge-based PWM system will be explained with reference to
In some embodiments, to indicate a reset a certain trigger pulse, for example a trigger pulse with a certain length, may be defined as a reset for all participants (e.g. slaves), for example all sensors coupled to a controller. Following receipt of such a reset trigger pulse, information to be kept consistent may be set to a predefined value. For example, a counter like a rolling counter may be reset to a defined starting value, for example 00 for a two-bit counter or 0000 for a four-bit counter, although other values may also be used. For example, a certain trigger pulse length of an ID which is not used by any slave may be used as a kind of reset ID. In other embodiments, a trigger pulse of a length greater than any length associated with a ID may be used. In some embodiments, using an ID as a reset ID may imply that one participant less may be used (as the ID is occupied by being a reset ID), and/or in a range mode one range less may be available. Using a specific trigger pulse as a reset pulse is illustrated in
In the example of
In another embodiment, a trigger pulse may be omitted, which the slaves may recognize as a timeout indicating a reset of a counter. This is illustrated in
The above-mentioned reset approaches in embodiments have the property that a wrong timing leads to a “safe fault”, as when the reset is not recognized, further errors will be detected, and when the reset (via timeout or a reset trigger pulse) is recognized the counter is set to a defined value.
In an alternative approach, a master device, instead of transmitting a reset, may test all counter values (e.g. 00, 01, 10, 11 for a two bit counter) to find the correct counter value (which may be detected by a correct checksum), which may be used as a basis for following transmission. In such an embodiment, the treatment of an error on the master side may require more processing time (for testing the counter values), on the other hand no additional transmissions like reset pulses or timeouts are necessary.
The above-described embodiments serve merely as examples, and are not to be construed as limiting.
This application claims priority to U.S. provisional application No. 61/968,049 filed on Mar. 20, 2014.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4388725 | Saito et al. | Jun 1983 | A |
4531068 | Kraft et al. | Jul 1985 | A |
5646996 | Latka | Jul 1997 | A |
5787132 | Kishigami et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
6060906 | Chow et al. | May 2000 | A |
6201811 | Larsson et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6275550 | Fukuda | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6405337 | Grohn | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6496889 | Perino et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6609224 | Jonsson | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6977930 | Epps | Dec 2005 | B1 |
7027773 | McMillin | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7269774 | Sudo | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7627121 | Reeds, III | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7627804 | Bains | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7653757 | Fernald et al. | Jan 2010 | B1 |
7809870 | McDaniel | Oct 2010 | B2 |
8183982 | Scherr | May 2012 | B2 |
8301972 | Tang | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8519819 | Scherr | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8948280 | Hammerschmidt et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
20040107398 | Johnson | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20050127942 | Smith et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20070088883 | Wakabayashi | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20080198917 | Mignone | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20090046773 | Scherr | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20100002821 | Hammerschmidt et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100262887 | Wilson | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20110280299 | O'Malley et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20140101349 | Engl | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20150200706 | Bottazzi et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150236876 | Cadugan et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
102008031498 | Jan 2010 | DE |
S56153866 | Nov 1981 | JP |
58-024925 | Feb 1983 | JP |
08-023582 | Jan 1996 | JP |
2003189654 | Jul 2003 | JP |
2013017094 | Jan 2013 | JP |
Entry |
---|
Non Final Office Action Dated Dec. 18, 2015 U.S. Appl. No. 14/934,729. |
Non-Final Office Action dated May 13, 2015 in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/318,741. |
Non Final Office Action Dated Jan. 11, 2016 U.S. Appl. No. 14/458,745. |
Final Office Action Dated Sep. 1, 2015 U.S. Appl. No. 14/458,745. |
“TLE4998C3, TLE4998C4 Programmable Linear Hall Sensor”; Data Sheet, Rev 1.0, Infineon Technologies AG, Dec. 2008, p. 1-44. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/318,741, filed Jun. 30, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/458,745, filed Aug. 13, 2014. |
Non Final Office Action Dated Apr. 2, 2015 U.S. Appl. No. 14/458,745. |
Notice of Allowance Dated Jul. 31, 2015 U.S. Appl. No. 14/318,741. |
Final Office Action Dated Jul. 1, 2016 U.S. Appl. No. 14/458,745. |
Kramolis, J. “SENT/SPC Driver for the MPC5510 Microcontroller Family.” Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. Document No. AN4219, Rev. 0, Oct. 2010. 28 pages. |
Notice of Allowance Dated May 31, 2016 U.S. Appl. No. 14/934,729. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20150269019 A1 | Sep 2015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61968049 | Mar 2014 | US |