Patent Grant
8897319
This invention relates generally to electronic communications and more specifically to a high speed protocol for control networks.
Electronic devices communicate with each other in a variety of ways, often based upon the requirements of a given context. One such context is that of control systems. Unlike simple communication systems where the system merely allows for communication among the devices communicating on the system, control systems communicate for the purpose of explicit control over the modules connected to communicate over the control system. Such systems then allow other applications to run on the various modules. Those applications in a distributed embedded control systems, however, should work in concert.
To provide that group control, most distributed embedded control systems are built around a communication protocol standard, examples of which include CAN (ISO 11898), SERCOS, FlexRay, EtherCAT, and sometimes even Ethernet among others. Higher layer protocols are embedded on top of the communication standard to provide rules for data exchange among participating applications at Electronic Control Units participating in the control network, timing rules, sequence rules, and the like to facilitate communications between the distributed applications that are exchanging information. CANopen, DeviceNet, SDS, J1939, and NMEA 2000 are just a few examples of protocols that are layered on top of the CAN standard. Even meta protocols like CanKingdom are used, by which higher layer protocols can be constructed and optimized for specific distributed embedded control systems.
Each protocol standard has its own strengths and weaknesses. The ideal communication would have an infinite bandwidth, no latency, and full data integrity. Available communication alternatives are fare from the ideal one and compromises have to be found. For instance, Ethernet has a big bandwidth but poor timeliness due to its handling of message collisions. CAN has an efficient collision resolution but low bandwidth and no synchronization support. SERCOS is fast but all nodes have to support the communication requirement of the most demanding node in the system. Accordingly, one big difficulty when designing a distributed embedded control system is to choose the basic communication system to fit the given system's needs. Another complication is that different parts of a system often have different needs. Some parts may involve advanced feedback loops requiring accurate time synchronization and short latencies while other parts may not be time critical at all but instead depend on a correct sequence of events. In another example, a system may during runtime conditions work well with a communication protocol with low bandwidth but would need a high bandwidth for re-flashing modules in a maintenance mode. Moreover, industry requires a number of development and analyzing tools and pool of engineers with an in depth familiarity with the chosen communication protocol to find the correct compromises. To apply the given technologies in a way to take advantage of the good properties of a protocol and to minimize its shortcomings typically requires a long time of practical experience in design and maintenance of distributed embedded control systems based on the chosen protocol and its associated tools.
In the example of CAN systems, the CANFD protocol has been developed in an attempt to address the CAN protocol's data bandwidth limitations. This system, however, is not backward compatible with previous CAN-based modules. Accordingly, modules using the CANFD protocol cannot be installed into a control network having CAN-based modules and effect communication with those modules. Another shortcoming is that the CANFD protocol is based on the modules' looking for a given set point in time, which requires the modules to have highly accurate clocks and processors. Specifically, CAN-FD requires a switch from a first bit-rate to a second bit-rate relative an edge in combination with the sample point location. This solution demands stable clocks over the time from the edge to the sample point and a common location of the sample point in the definition of the first bit-rate. To get a precise definition of the sample point limits the possible clock frequency that can be used to run the CAN-FD controller. Moreover, although speed is improved over previous CAN-based systems, the maximum message length is still limited to 64 bytes. Such a system lacks in flexibility for system designers.
Moreover, CANFD may present some implementation challenges for current users of CAN-based control systems. In one example, the automotive industry uses CAN-based modules for communication among various elements in a vehicle. Given the nature of the automotive business, simply changing one module in a vehicle's system can be very expensive. Given the challenges facing integration of CANFD modules with CAN modules, to introduce one CANFD module would force an auto maker to either change every module in a given vehicle to CANFD (and absorbing the many multiples of cost to design, build, and test every new module) or split a vehicle's communication bus into two: one running CAN and another running CANFD. Thus, there is a need for a technology that can allow for introduction of CANFD modules gradually over time, such as in the automotive industry, to pre-established CAN-based system to lower the barrier to entry that might otherwise face CANFD modules.
Generally speaking, pursuant to these various embodiments, a second protocol is embedded into a first protocol in a way that modules supporting the second protocol may be aware of and utilize the first protocol whereas modules supporting only the first protocol may not be aware of the second protocol. Operation of modules using the second protocol does not disturb operation of the modules not configured to use or understand the second protocol. By one approach, the messages sent using the second protocol will be seen as messages sent using the first protocol but not having a message necessary to understand or as needing a particular response. In another approach, modules using the second protocol can be configured to send a message during transmission of first protocol messages by other modules, the second protocol messages being triggered off of expected aspects of the message sent under the first protocol.
In one particular example, the first protocol may be CAN protocol, and the second protocol is a protocol that embeds bits into portions of the CAN protocol. For example, bits of a CAN protocol typically include several bit quanta, and the CAN protocol operates by looking for particular signal levels at particular portions or bit quanta of the individual bits. By one approach, therefore, the second protocol can include sending additional information within the CAN message packet using bit quanta of Prop-Seg bits of the CAN message packet other than the defined bit quanta.
The second protocol information is embedded such that falling edges of bits in the second protocol will not interfere with normal operation of modules only understanding the first or CAN protocol. This can be done, for example, by effecting synchronization of modules using both the first and second protocols with a portion of the message packet. Using this approach can allow modules using the second protocol to use messaging controls of the first protocol message that is carrying the second protocol message to control the second protocol message thereby increasing the amount of data that can transmitted with a single second protocol message.
These teachings are scalable such that multiple modules on a single common control network can be using multiple different kinds of embedded protocols within the first protocol. Moreover, modules using the second protocol can be installed into a control network using older modules configured to only use the first protocol, thereby allowing significant flexibility in upgrading portions of an existing control network.
Such benefits can be envisioned in the example of implementation in an automotive industry setting. Here, new modules can be configured to operate using the CAN standard, a second protocol as described herein, and the CANFD protocol. Such modules can be introduced to otherwise stable CAN-based communication buses and increase communication speed through use of the second protocol. Over time, after all the old CAN modules are replaced, the modules can communicate using the CANFD protocol to provide a uniform, high speed communication environment. In this way, adoption of modules using the CANFD protocol can proceed immediately without the attendant concerns regarding incorporation of CANFD modules into communication busses having old CAN modules.
These and other benefits may become clearer upon making a thorough review and study of the following detailed description.
Skilled artisans will appreciate that elements in the figures are illustrated for simplicity and clarity and have not necessarily been drawn to scale. For example, the dimensions and/or relative positioning of some of the elements in the figures may be exaggerated relative to other elements to help to improve understanding of various embodiments of the present invention. Also, common but well-understood elements that are useful or necessary in a commercially feasible embodiment are often not depicted in order to facilitate a less obstructed view of these various embodiments. It will further be appreciated that certain actions and/or steps may be described or depicted in a particular order of occurrence while those skilled in the art will understand that such specificity with respect to sequence is not actually required. It will also be understood that the terms and expressions used herein have the ordinary technical meaning as is accorded to such terms and expressions by persons skilled in the technical field as set forth above except where different specific meanings have otherwise been set forth herein.
Referring now to the drawings, and in particular to
By one approach, the processing device 1014 is configured to communicate, during transmission of a message packet over the control network 1000 according to a first protocol, a second message embedded within the message packet using a second protocol. For example, the processing device 1014 is further configured to effect synchronization with a second communication device 1020, 1030, 1040, 1050, 1050, and/or 1060 over the control network 1000 for the first protocol and the second protocol based on at least a portion of the message packet. In another approach, the processing device 1014 supports both the first and second protocols and uses both protocols when communicating with communication devices 1020 and 1050, which also support both the first and second protocols, whereas communication devices 1030, 1040, and 1060 only support the first protocol. In this example, any information in the messages according to the second protocol will be interpreted as noise and will be ignored by the communication devices 1030, 1040, and 1060 running only, and as defined by, the first protocol.
An example implementation of embedding the second protocol message in the first protocol message will be described with reference to
In this implementation, modules supporting the CAN protocol ISO 11898 can coexist with modules supporting a second protocol on the same bus by abstaining from taking advantage of one or more features of CAN.
According to the CAN specification (ISO 11898-1), a bit is constructed of time quanta. With reference to
Time quantum=m·minimum time quantum
where m is the value of the prescaler.
In operation, therefore, another example CAN bit 132 as illustrated in
All clocks in a CAN system are assumed to be unsynchronized. When a SOF 104 is transmitted, each module's clock is synchronized to the falling edge 140, and each module counts the number of time quanta specified for Prop_Seg and Phase_Seg1. For example, the internal clock of a module that receives the falling edge can determine the timing of the expected sampling point within the resolution of that internal clock; i.e., by knowing the definition of the bits in the internal clock the module can calculate the location of the sampling point relative to the internal clock. In CAN is this typically done by time quanta unit where each time quanta is a number of local clock elements. The voltage of the signal is measured at the Sampling Point 141. If the voltage is still present, the module decides that a SOF is detected and the following voltage shifts are decoded according to the CAN specification. If there is no voltage at the Sampling Point 141, the falling edge is regarded as a glitch and ignored. This feature can be seen as a low pass filter, filtering out disturbances on the bus, for example, due to wave reflections. Such features make CAN dependable and forgiving in bad wiring installations.
Voltage edges can radiate high frequencies in certain communication systems, thereby causing electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) problems. To reduce such problems, CAN specifies a Non Return to Zero (NRZ) decoding of bits, in other words, consecutive bits of the same value do not generate any edges; instead, the bits are decoded by dead reckoning. The individual modules' clocks are resynchronized on falling edges only, defined as transitions from recessive (1) bits to dominant (0) bits. CAN has a bit stuffing rule that after a sequence of five consecutive bits of the same value, a stuff bit of opposite value shall be inserted to make sure that resynchronizations will take place. Thus a resynchronization will take place at least after ten bits during normal conditions. The CAN specification demands the Sampling Point to stay within the phase segments for at least 13 bits.
More elaborate information about CAN can be found in the ISO standard 1898 and the article “The Configuration of the CAN Bit Timing” by Florian Hartwig and Armin Bassemir (Robert Bosch GmbH, Abt. K8/EIS), presented at 6th International CAN Conference 2nd to 4th November, Turin (Italy), published by CAN in Automation (CiA), Nürnberg Germany, which materials are incorporated by reference in their entireties herein.
Turning to
In the
More specifically,
In this example, however, the second protocol will generate a falling edge 326 two bit quanta from the assumed start 310 of bit 307, which will cause the CAN module to then resynchronize and move the sampling point one bit quantum to 312 (as the Phase_Seg for this example is only one bit quantum long). The CAN module will still correctly sample the bit value as 1 but at a false position in the CAN message used by the transmitting module supporting the second protocol. The next falling edge 327 in the following CAN bit 313 would move the CAN sampling point another time quantum and into the wrong bit. Then it could wrongly sample a dominant level generated by the second protocol as indicated by 314.
To avoid this error, the processing device for the module operating under the second protocol is configured to set a Sync_Seg bit quantum as dominant, for instance, after recessive samples in the first protocol. The drawback of this rule is that it will introduce more falling edges in CAN messages compared with the original CAN protocol, but any high speed protocol would similarly create additional falling edges. In one example of this approach, stuff-bits are used in the first protocol to secure a resynchronization edge at least every 10 bits. With this new edge generator, resynchronization will occur on every recessive bit and never after more than 6 bits. With such an arrangement, the example system can run with clocks with 66% less tolerance. One potential drawback in such an approach is that benefits may be realized only where all messages are sent with this extra edge in the synch segment, and this approach may not work if the messages are sent according to the first protocol. This feature can also be used to move the sample point in the first protocol out of the propagation segment. By having the first byte in the first protocol with only recessive bits, it is possible to have eight edges that will move the sample point at least eight time quanta out of the propagation segment. This will not cover all cases because a propagation segment could have more than eight time quanta in the propagation segment. In most cases this should be more than enough and other implementations can be programmed to cover any setting used in the first protocol.
Referring back to
In the example, the amount of eleven bit quanta was chosen to constitute a CAN bit. Eighteen bit quanta could have been chosen to embed two bytes in each CAN bit. The bandwidth could then be increased 24 times. The CAN specification states that a bit should be programmable to at least 25 bit quanta, so the bandwidth could be increased even more, such as by using 35 or 67 bit quanta for a bit. The limit is set only by the quality of the clocks, transceivers, and cabling of the system in use. So configured, one advantage is that protocols like CAN can be gradually enhanced as new module designs can take advantage of more modern and sophisticated components and still be fully backwards compatible in systems with legacy modules.
Starting from the above framework, many modified approaches can be used to fit various control network design needs.
In one example, U.S. Pat. No. 7,711,880 titled “Schematizing of messages in distributed control and supervision system” and incorporated herein by reference describes several ways to design CAN systems in a way that collisions are avoided such as by combining scheduling of messages and the CAN collision resolution mechanism. The CanKingdom protocol describes how to build up a protocol from protocol primitives. Any CAN system has a limited number of messages. Assuming that the number of such messages is in the range between 128 and 256, the arbitration field could be limited to one byte. The RTR bit CAN protocol primitive is optional and may not be used in this example. Moreover, the two reserved bits in the Control field do not contribute where a system specific protocol is created and legacy CAN modules do not participate. The DLC field can be modified and then allow for defining 16 different lengths of the data field according to a given need.
If such approaches are employed in a given control network, then the Arbitration field 107 for CAN messages on that network can be used by the embedded protocol. In this approach, the processing device for a module operating the second protocol is configured to use complete or partial collision avoidance for the CAN-based first protocol and to embed at least a portion of the second message in an arbitration portion of the message packet. This would add another 12 or 32 embedded bytes to a CAN message as implemented in the example above, such that 109 or 129 data bytes can be included in one CAN transmission.
In another example, the maximum bit rate of a CAN communication is limited by the bus length. U.S. Pat. No. 5,696,911 titled “Arrangement for eliminating malfunction and/or permitting high-speed transmission in a serial bus connection, and transmitter and receiver units linked to the latter” and incorporated herein by reference describes how a higher bit rate can be used when some modules can be turned into a silent mode, and thus not fully participating in the CAN error protection procedure. By applying an embedded protocol as described above into such a system, the bandwidth of the communication could be increased another order of magnitude.
In yet another example, CAN may be used to be a carrier frame for other new protocols. Some CAN higher layer protocols are not backwards compatible with CANFD and may not be able to integrate a high speed protocol into the standard. One such protocol is the well-known SAE J1939. A solution to this problem includes assigning a few specific CAN identifiers with fixed CAN fields for the sole purpose of being a carrier frame of the new protocol. The first three bits of a J1939 frame are ignored by receivers and used to form seven transmission priority levels (J1939/21, 5.2.1). The value 011b (3) is reserved for control messages and the value 110b for all other informational, proprietary, request and ACK messages. Then the value 001 could be assigned to carry the new protocol. The following CAN bits should all be ones (recessive) to provide a well-defined frame with all CAN bits including CAN id, stuff bits, RTR bit, control bits, HLP bits, CRC bits, and the like known a priori. Every CAN bit after 001 can then be used for embedding the new protocol. Alternatively, if a low priority level would be preferred, then the first five CAN identifier bits should be 11101, followed by ones carrying the new protocol. The suggested solution will also give the maximum resynchronization opportunities for the embedded protocol by the earlier suggested Sync_Seg modification. Regarding synchronization, a module losing arbitration can be sampling received bits at a wrong position because it did not make a hard synch at the winning module's falling flank such as where it could have started its transmission just before reception of the falling flank of the winning node's SOF. Some of the first recessive bits in the CAN identifier may then be used solely (i.e., not carry any bits of the new protocol) to force receiving nodes to re-synchronize enough to get the right position of their sampling points.
Moreover, the second protocol can be implemented in any of a variety of ways. In the example above, the embedded protocol has a NRZ bit coding but it could have been coded in another way, such as manchester or miller coded. In a case where the processing device is configured to implement the second protocol by using an encoding method based on CAN, additional advantages can be realized, especially where the first protocol is CAN based. In such a situation, systems could be gradually upgraded. Some CAN higher layer protocols use only a few CAN identifiers and extend the identification into one or two of the data bytes. CanKingdom is an example on such a protocol. It uses the CAN_Std. ID 0 for setup messages and each node has one CAN ID for response messages. In such an approach, the setup time for a control network could be significantly shortened for the modules supporting the embedded protocol because all setup instructions to the module could be carried in one message with all responses to the instructions sent by the module in another message. More specifically, the processing device for the module is configured to receive a setup message and derive from the setup message information sufficient to configure the first protocol for communication over the bus and information sufficient to configure the second protocol for communication over the bus. That same setup message is configured to allow a device configured to operate only under the first protocol to configure itself in response to receiving the setup message. In one approach, the processing device for the module operating the second protocol can be configured to use a same software module to configure itself at set up time for both the first protocol and the second protocol. Virtually no changes have to be done in the software, and mixing new modules with legacy modules would not create any problem. Legacy modules would receive one instruction in each message (as today) but new ones would get everything in one message. As the contents are defined by the CAN id 0 and the first two bytes, the decoding would be the same in both instances.
Additional efficiencies can be realized in this manner where the processing device is configured to implement the second protocol by sharing at least one of the group consisting of: an error state message portion, an initialization message portion, an acknowledgment message portion, a sampling portion, and any combinations thereof with the message packet sent according to the first protocol. Where both the first protocol and second protocol utilize CAN based approaches, the processing device implementing the second module can be configured to implement the second protocol by sharing at least one of the group consisting of: a start of frame bit, an arbitration field, an error state bit, an acknowledgment bit, an end of frame bit, and any combinations thereof with the message packet sent according to the CAN protocol. Although the acknowledge bit is transmitted by all modules, the second protocol may or may not use this message to configure a module for further communication with an acknowledging module.
Additional modifications to the bit coding of an embedded protocol can be employed where the bit stuffing arrangement of the CAN protocol is omitted. Bit stuffing is not needed for the second protocol described above because the longest time between resynchronization edges is five consecutive dominant CAN bits. A CRC sum is calculated after each CAN byte and placed in the next two CAN bits. If a CRC mismatch is detected a CAN error frame is transmitted. In other approaches, if the first protocol needs resynchronization every 10 bits, then the second protocol will need resynchronization after a time equal to 10 second protocol bits. If a resynchronization occurs in every synch segment, it will be possible to have up to 10 bits in the propagation segment without resynchronization, which will demand that every first protocol bit is sampled recessive to secure that there are a recessive to dominant edge in every synch segment. If the number of second protocol bits are more than this, a resynchronization will be needed, and one example way is to include a stuff-bit every five bits or by fixing a rule that every sixth bit is a stuff bit with a polarity inverted to the value of previous bit. Here one can assume that the clocks have a tolerance better than 500 ppm as described by the J1939 standard. This will make it possible to keep the sampling of the secondary protocol bits over two first protocol bits. If the clocks are not good, one can implement a mechanism that will ensure a resynchronization in the synch segment to define the start of the secondary protocol sequence. One such rule is that if there is a dominant first protocol bit, there will be a recessive-dominant pair as a start condition, and if there is a recessive first protocol bit, there will be a dominant-recessive pair as a start condition ahead of the secondary protocol bits in the propagation segment. This approach will get all receiver modules in synch to sample the secondary protocol bits. To keep the synchronization additional stuff-bits may be needed, and the distance between the stuff-bits will set the maximum tolerance of the oscillator in the modules used in the system.
The above teachings are scalable where one module can be configured to communicate over the control network using a third protocol by communicating, during transmission of a message packet over the control network according to the first protocol, a third message embedded within the message packet using a third protocol. In another approach, different modules can embed different protocols. These embedded protocols do not have to follow any design rules of CAN. The voltage level in the example above is the same as for CAN, but it could have been different. Thus, a multitude of protocols, optimized for different purposes, can be embedded. Different groups of nodes in a CAN network may use different embedded protocols. For instance, the processing device for a module can be configured to change an encoding method for the second protocol in response to a change in operation mode for the communication device apparatus with such modes including, for example, a maintenance mode, a re-flashing mode, a run mode, a sleep mode, and the like. The bit rate for the second protocol could be modified as well.
Moreover, the processing device can be configured to apply the second protocol to fewer than every first protocol message sent from the communication device apparatus. For example, in many systems, the CAN bandwidth is quite sufficient for the most part of time during runtime conditions. In such applications, the embedded protocol will be used only for some specific messages that may require multiple transmissions over the first protocol, one example being GPS coordinates. The embedded protocol may also be used for diagnostics. Now On Board Diagnostics (OBD) is a legislated part of CAN communication in vehicles, requiring some message exchange during runtime conditions. This creates a bandwidth and as well a timing problem as OBD messages only appears when diagnostic checks are performed. Where a communication module is configured to operate in a vehicle bus, its processing device can thus be configured to effect transmission of vehicle on board diagnostics information using the second protocol during runtime sending of messages using the first protocol. Such application of an embedded protocol as described herein would eliminate the problem as OBD information could be carried by the embedded protocol and would neither affect timing nor bandwidth during runtime conditions. Another example is where a vehicle system is re-flashed. In this example, the processing device of the module is configured to control participation in a flashing operation of devices on the bus using the second protocol to reduce system delays during the flashing operation.
Still another benefit to the describe approach is using the second protocol to help identify network problems. For instance, disturbances on the bus comprise a common CAN problem that can often be hard to find and cure. Such disturbances include wave reflections due to impedance shifts along the bus, clock frequency changes due to temperature variations across different nodes, and temporary distortions due external sources. Often, the disturbance at only one node in a system can alone destroy a CAN message. The margin to failure is typically not known. Thus, the second protocol can be used to address such issues. For example, the second protocol's high speed sampling capability can be used to detect noise in the first protocol messages. Noise in the propagation segment in the first protocol messages can indicate difficulty in utilizing the secondary protocol because the noise may cause bit errors or CRC-errors in the secondary protocol.
As said above, the embedded high speed protocol is typically only occasionally needed. When not used to communicate using the embedded protocol, the equipment can be used for an almost continuous quality check of the physical layer. In this approach, the processing device for a module is configured to use the second protocol to test signal quality for the control network. By one approach, the processing device is configured to control the second protocol to use a bit rate higher than the first protocol's bit rate and to determine whether second protocol bits embedded in a received first protocol message vary from an expected signal level as compared to a signal level expected for a corresponding portion of the received first protocol message when the received first protocol message does not have a message embedded using the second protocol. In other words, each module is set to listen to the bus, and during an idle bus, no zeroes should be detected. When a CAN message is transmitted, all bits in the bytes in the embedded protocol should have the same value as the CAN bit.
To illustrate this point,
If it is determined that for a given control network that disturbances occur primarily in particular portions of a first protocol message, such as close to edges in the example above, the embedded protocol can be modified to refraining from using particular portions of the first protocol for embedding. In the above example, the second protocol could be configured to avoid using one or more of the first time quanta in the Prop_Seg for embedding data. The higher layer protocol CanKingdom demonstrates how the CAN bit timing can be optimized by using Kings Page 8, which same method could be used to specify the time quanta that should be used by the embedded protocol. In another such approach, the whole embedded protocol could be set up in a system specific way by applying the CanKingdom method, still using general modules.
In a further quality check, the clock for counting on the second protocol could be used to detect differences between a local clock and that of another device on the control network. In such an approach, the module typically uses separate counters for decoding the first protocol, such as a CAN protocol, and the embedded second control. Here, the processing device is configured to operate in a mode where no embedded second message is expected and when operating in the mode, to not resynchronize a counter for the second protocol in response to receiving a synchronizing portion of a received first protocol message. Then the processing device counts clock ticks of the counter for the second protocol over a portion of the received first protocol message to determine a clock rate for a module that transmitted the received first protocol message. Thus, in parallel to participating in the CAN communication, a node could easily determine the difference between the local clock frequency and the clock frequency of the respective transmitter by refraining to resynchronize the clock of the embedded protocol by comparing the time from the end of the arbitration field until the falling edge of the ACK bit as registered by the resynchronized CAN clock and the un-resynchronized clock of the embedded protocol. Additional advantages can be achieved by combining the current teachings with techniques described according to the U.S. Pat. No. 7,934,039 and U.S. Pat. No. 7,478,234, each of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entireties.
A further example implementation of a second protocol inside a first protocol will be described with reference to
Where the second ECU 703 is configured to operate according the second protocol as described herein, the ECU 703 will signalize the same bit sequence as illustrated in the message 1120. Here, the Sync_Seg 710 is understood as a one dominant bit quantum. The next part is recessive until the dominant Pase_Seg 1 and 2 711 followed by the dominant Sync_Seg 712 and the recessive Phase_Seg 1 and 2 713 of the first 1 bit following the zero bit in the original CAN message 1100. The second 1 bit after the zero bit is initiated by the dominant Sync_Seg 714. Under the original CAN protocol, a Prop_Seg is calculated to determine the signal delay between the ECUs 702 and 703, which is specified to be eight bit quanta, shown as 715. An additional nine bit quanta 716 are added to the left of the bit. The second protocol in this example is defined as one byte represented as one Start of Byte bit quantum followed by eight bit quanta.
The ECU 702 is instructed to use specific bits in a specific CAN message for transmitting bytes according to the second protocol. In this example, the segment 716 shows where in the original CAN protocol message 110 these bits are transmitted from the ECU 703. To illustrate the time delay on the bus and how the modules send information despite the time delay,
So configured, not only can signals according to a second protocol from different ECUs be embedded in one and the same message according to a first protocol, but also the propagation delay between ECUs can easily be measured. A great variety of protocols with different qualities can be created by combining these teachings with those of certain prior teachings such as those described by U.S. Pat. No. 7,711,880 titled Schematizing Of Messages In Distributed Control And Supervision, U.S. Pat. No. 7,472,216 titled Variable Oscillator For Generating Different Frequencies In A Controller Area Network (CAN), U.S. Pat. No. 7,899,936 titled Device In A Modularized System For Effecting Time-Stamping Of Events/Reference Events, and U.S. Pat. No. 7,478,234 titled Distributed Control And Monitoring System, to name but a few, each of which is incorporated by reference herein in their entireties.
The various protocols described herein may also be applied in different control network topologies. In one example illustrated in
In an example implementation of such a star topology network having a plurality of modules, a first set of the plurality of modules 1412, 1414, 1415, 1416, 1417 is configured to communicate using both a first and second protocol as described herein and is connected to communicate on a first CAN channel 1422 of the plurality of CAN channels. A second set of the plurality of modules 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 are connected to communicate over the control network 1400 using the first protocol and not the second protocol over a second CAN channel 1424. A third set of the plurality of modules 1460, 1462 are connected to communicate over a third CAN channel 1426 of the plurality of CAN channels using both the first protocol and a third protocol by sending a message packet using the first protocol with a third protocol based message embedded within the message packet using the third protocol. The third protocol may or may not be compatible with the second protocol. Here, the active hub device 1410 is configured to receive messages using the second protocol via the first CAN channel 1422 and to send the messages using the third protocol via the third CAN channel 1426.
In another example of having multiple modules communicating in a given context, multiple modules configured to use an embedded protocol can be configured to receive a signal that a forthcoming first protocol message will be sent and configured to allow multiple second protocol messages to be embedded during the time of transmission of the forthcoming message. In response, the multiple modules can configure themselves such that individual ones of the modules send second protocol messages during certain portions of the forthcoming first protocol message. From a single module's point of view, the first module is configured to receive a signal that a forthcoming first protocol message will be sent and to configure itself to send a message based on the second protocol during a first defined portion of the forthcoming first protocol message less than a whole of the forthcoming first protocol message and to receive a second protocol message from another module during a second defined portion of the forthcoming first protocol message different from the first defined portion. Accordingly, multiple second protocol based modules can send information during the course of a single first protocol message, which can greatly reduce communication latency when multiple modules need to exchange information.
In one specific example of such an approach, one “master node” transmits a CAN based message with a given CAN ID and DLC, such as, for example, 1000 bits. The data field is then patterned with 1's. On the bus there will then be a pattern of ten blocks containing five recessive bits and one dominant bit. Each of the ten recessive bits can be used for the embedded protocol in different ways. One example could be to have an embedded protocol as suggested above, where each CAN bit can carry a byte according to the embedded protocol. The decoding rules for the information in the embedded protocol is given by the CAN ID in principally the same way as CAN higher layer protocols. The data bits are then scheduled, such that the first two five-bit sequences are reserved for a second protocol transmission from a first node, the second two five-bit sequences are reserved for a second protocol transmission from a second node, the third two five-bit sequences are reserved for a second protocol transmission from a third node, and so forth. Each module can then send eight bytes of data and a 15 bit CRC sum as in an ordinary CAN message. In this way, the latencies of transmissions from these second protocol nodes can be considerably reduced. For instance, transmissions from five nodes can be reduced five times, and the latencies between the data packages among these five nodes are known a priori to a high accuracy in this example. Different schemes can be applied according to different needs. Not only the data field can be used but also recessive bits in the CRC field, the CRC delimiter and the recessive bits after the ACK bit.
In an additional alternative embodiment, the functionality or logic described in above may be embodied in the form of code that may be executed in a separate processor circuit. If embodied in software, each block of functionality or logic may represent a module, segment, or portion of code that comprises program instructions to implement the specified logical function(s). The program instructions may be embodied in the form of source code that comprises human-readable statements written in a programming language or machine code that comprises numerical instructions recognizable by a suitable execution system such as a processor in a computer system or other system. The machine code may be converted from the source code. If embodied in hardware, each block may represent a circuit or a number of interconnected circuits to implement the specified logical function(s). Accordingly, a computer readable medium (being non-transitory or tangible) may store such instructions that are configured to cause a processing device to perform operations as described herein.
Various ways of implementing the second protocol inside a CAN protocol using hardware and software components are possible. In one approach, sending and reception of data comprise two independent processes with two different local clocks with the exception of arbitration, which is a mixture of sending and receiving at the same time. The sender places one bit at a time into the communication wire. The length of every bit is defined as a number of local clock cycles. In most cases, every bit sent has the same length in local clock cycles, but the protocol can accommodate a mixture of different bits with different length in the local clock cycles. In one example, a second protocol may use two different bit-lengths, but additional bit-lengths are possible. Each bit sent will generally have at least one out of two different levels, but more levels are possible. The level of each bit is defined by the protocol. Some fixed and other bits will depend on the data content, for example a digital 1 could be sent as one bit 0 and a second bit 1 compared to a digital 0 be sent as one bit 1 and a second bit 0, which such pattern is called Manchester coding. The sender will send a stream of bits starting with the first bit and ending with the last bit included in the protocol forming the message. The time between messages is called idle bus and could be a fixed level or a pattern of different levels indicating an idle communication bus.
In this example, the receiver generally stays idle while decoding the idle pattern on the communication wire. The start of a message will be a pattern different from the idle pattern, and this pattern includes an edge (a switch from one level to another level). The protocol defines how this edge is related to the location of the sampling point in every bit that follows in units of local clock units. If the receiver clock has the same pace as the sender clock, the receiver will sample every bit correctly through the message. Practically speaking it is difficult to impossible to have two clocks that will have the same pace through infinite time. Accordingly, a system either uses a clock that is good enough to keep the sampling point within the message, or the messages are designed to be short enough to secure that the clock will not deviate too much over the message. Neither solution is ideal because often available clocks are not accurate enough or the messages can become too short. To solve this problem the protocol can define certain edges used to adjust the sample point. Normally the edges are defined as the level shift between two bits. If those well-defined edges occur too early or too late, the receiver may be able to adjust the location of the sampling point relative to those edges to get the sampling better located in the following bits until there is a new edge that can be used for the next correction. During arbitration, a module should adjust the sending of bits according to reception of the edges as defined by the protocol. The precision of the clocks is given by how much the sampling point can change in time and still sample within the correct bit in combination with how often and how much the sampling point will be corrected by the protocol rules.
Turning to
More specifically, in the example of
In such an approach, the communication port 1510 is operatively connected to the first processing device 1500 to send the CAN message packet over the control network 1511 and the at least a second processing device 1505 to send the additional information over the control network 1511. Moreover, the communication port 1510 is configured to connect to the control network 1511 to receive CAN message packets transmitted over the control network 1511 and operatively connected to provide the received CAN message packet to the first processing device 1503 to read CAN message data and to provide the received CAN message packets to the at least a second processing device 1505, 1507 to read additional information in the CAN message packet. In the illustrated example, the communication port 1510 includes separate receiving (bus level indicator) 1513 and transmitting 1515 portions, although other configurations that substantially combine these aspects together are possible.
The first register 1532 provides the first trigger signal to the first processing device 1503 where the first trigger signal corresponds to a sampling time for the CAN message packet. The second register 1632 provides the second trigger signal to at least one of the at least second processing device 1505 where the second trigger signal corresponds to a sampling time for the additional information sent within the CAN message packet. In this manner, the registers 1532 and 1632 help the processing device track when to sense for voltage signals in a received packet or when to provide a signal in a sent packet. Sometimes these registers need to be reset to effect a resynchronization of the communication device apparatus with other communication modules on the control network 1511. In one approach, a reset device 1536 senses a start of frame and is connected to reset the at least two registers 1532 and 1534 in response to sensing the start of frame. In the illustrated approach, the reset device 1536, 1636 of each of the respective time counters 1530 and 1630 receives an output signal provided from the CAN bit recognizer module 1550 in response to sensing a start of frame signal on the control network 1511. Although the different registers used to provide time events for different sampling rates are illustrated in different modules 1530 and 1630, the registers need not be so separated in a given implementation.
One can understand the above example in the context of the concept of time. Most common communication protocols are based on the physical second for representing a bit. For example, the standard CAN protocol defines its bit time as “Bus management functions executed within the bit time frame, such as CAN node synchronization behaviour, network transmission delay compensation, and sample point positioning, shall be as given by the programmable bit timing logic of the CAN protocol IC. a) Nominal bit rate (BR) gives the number of bits per second transmitted in the absence of resynchronization by an ideal transmitter. b) Nominal bit time, tB=1/BR.”
On the other hand, time may be described as counting of bit quanta generated by an oscillator. For example, the standard CAN protocol defines the “programming of bit time” as “Programming of bit time shall be performed using the following periods of time . . . a) Time quantum The time quantum shall be a fixed unit of time derived from the oscillator period.”
Time as such is usually not defined in communication protocols although some communication protocols are defined as event-triggered or time-triggered. This disclosure can be understood in view of three different concepts of time. First is NTime (Natural Time), which is the time concept everyone experiences every day but no one knows what it is. By NTime, one can record and organize events in a dimension with past and future, and one can distinguish between predictable and unpredictable events. NTime in normal conditions has no starting point and is continuous, irreversible, unstoppable, and endless.
Second is PTime (Physical Time), which is a scientific concept of time in laws of physics for describing NTime when modeling nature. PTime is continuous and reversible, i.e., any model based on laws of physics can be run reversibly in time. A model will then show the conditions at any point from start and finish and vice versa according to the model. The PTime has a base unit, the second (s), which is one of the seven base units in the International System of Units (SI).
Third is LTime (Local Time or Logic Time), which is generated by a time-tick generator and measured by a time counter. A combination of the two constitutes an LTime Clock (LTC). A LTC is the time source of a LTime Domain (LTD). Two or more LTDs can be correlated to each other and/or synchronized to one of them or alternatively to a virtual LTD. The main purpose of this concept of time is to coordinate a flow of events, states, and transition of states among themselves as well as with both PTime and NTime domains.
Some LTime features include being finite with a defined start and finish. LTime is stoppable and can be restarted. LTime can also be related to PTime and NTime in a non/linear way. Accordingly, time-tick generators can be independent of PTime and NTime.
A LTD is typically defined by one LTC where the respective LTCs of several LTDs may have the same Time-tick Generator. Multiple LTDs can be synchronized by Reference Events (RE).
Referring again to the example of
To define the time quanta, the TC 1526 includes a register 1528 that sets the limit for the LTime. Each time the register 1528 reaches its defined limit, it transmits a Time Quantum Event at its output 1529 and resets itself. The result is a stream of time-tick events, i.e., a stream of Time quanta 1525. The time event generator 1520 defines a LTD, programmable to span from 1 to 32 time events that can generate time quanta according to the CAN protocol. The LTC or time event generator 1520 is acting as a time-tick generator and feeding the time counter 1530 with time events. The time event generator 1520 and time counter 1530 form another local time counter 1539.
The time counter 1530 includes an event input 1537 that resets the counter 1530 in response to receiving an event. The first register 1532 in this example is programmable from 2 to 17 and transmits an event at the output 1533 when the first register 1532 reaches the programmed value. The second register 1534 is programmable from 1 to 8 and transmits an event at the output 1535 and resets the counter 1530 when the counter 1530 reaches the programmed value of the first register 1532 plus the programmed value of the second register 1534. According to the CAN specification, a CAN bit consists as a minimum of a Sync_Seg time quantum, one Prop_Seg time quantum, one Phase_Seg 1 time quantum, and one Phase_Seg 2 time quantum, i.e., four time quanta, and the maximum length is Sync_Seg plus 24 time quanta. The first register 1532 can be programmed to cover Sync_Seg plus Prop_Seg plus Phase_Seg 1, and the second register 1534 can be programmed to cover Phase_Seg 2. The local time counter 1539 will the count the number of time events representing a CAN bit and generate an event after Phase_Seg 1 and another one after Phase_Seg 2.
Such a local time counter 1539 is capable of supporting a CAN bit recognizer 1550 as well as a bus level indicator 1513. In the illustrated example, the bus level indicator 1513 has an event input 1514 that receives time events 1525 from the time event generator 1520. In response to receiving a time event from the time event generator 1520, the bus level indicator 1513 samples the bus voltage on the CAN bus control network 1511. If a voltage is detected, the bus level indicator 1513 transmits a voltage-event signal 1516 to an event input port 1551 of the bit recognizer 1550. If no voltage is detected, the bus level indicator 1513 sends a no-voltage-event signal 1517 to an event input port 1552 at the CAN bit recognizer 114. In this arrangement, therefore, the CAN bit recognizer 1550 receives either a voltage signal or a no-voltage event signal at each time-tick event generated by the time event generator 1520.
The CAN bit recognizer 1550 includes an event logic device 1553 and an event counter 1554 that counts time events 1525. The event logic device 1553 is operatively coupled to an input port 1555 connected to receive first register events from the time counter's 1530 first register 1532. When operating under the CAN specification, a bit's value is decided at the end of the Phase_Seg 1, in which case the first register 1532 stores a value that generates a first register event corresponding to an expected Sample Point Event for a given CAN bit. The first register event triggers the CAN bit recognizer 1550 to detect a voltage on the control network 1511 at the expected Sample Point Event, in response to which the event logic device 1553 outputs a recessive bit event (corresponding to a logic “one”) at output 1556 in response to determining a no-voltage event from the bus level detector 1513. If a voltage event is detected is detected at the Sample Point, the event logic device 1553 outputs a dominant bit event (corresponding to a logic “zero”) at output 1557 unless the dominant bit event is a Start Of Frame event. A Start Of Frame event occurs upon detecting a logic “zero” after detecting ten or more consecutive Recessive Bits (logic “one”).
The event logic device 1553 is also triggered to detect a voltage in response to receiving a Start Of Frame register event signal from a Start Of Frame register 1534, which in this example is operatively connected to the first register 1532 and programmed to start counting time events in response to receiving an event from the first register 1532. After reaching the time event count programmed into the Start Of Frame register 1534, it outputs a Start Of Frame check event via an output 1535 to the event logic device 1553 to trigger the event logic device 1553 to check for a voltage corresponding to the start of frame for a bit following a sample point reading triggered by the first register 1532.
Generally speaking, the event logic detector 1553 is configured to recognize not only the recessive, dominant, and SOF bits by comparing voltage events, Sample Point events, and the number of time-tick events counted by the counter 1554. In response to detecting a Start of Frame event, the event logic detector 1553 generates a SOF Bit event signal at output 1558. These signals from outputs 1556, and 1557, and 1558 are received by a Protocol Logic Unit (PLU) 1560 that is configured to decode the bit stream received over the control network 1511 according to the CAN protocol.
The following describes one example way to program the example of
More specifically, when receiving the initial falling edge, the receiving device 1500 assumes it is a Start Of Frame (SOF) bit 1652 of a message and makes a Hard Sync, i.e., resets the counter of time quanta. In the example where a Hard Sync occurs in a bit after a start of a new message, the SOF 1652 can be referred to as a Start of Bit. After twelve time quanta, the Sample Point 1607 is reached, which lies between the last time quantum 1653 of the Phase_Seg 1 1606 and before the first time quantum 1654 of the Phase_Seg 2 1608. The voltage level is sampled at the Sample Point 1607 or SP. If the voltage level is dominant as illustrated with the voltage lines 1601, then the bit is decoded as a SOF where the falling edge at the time quantum 1652 is considered a start of a new CAN bit. If instead a recessive level is detected at the Sample Point as illustrated with the voltage lines 1660, 1670, and 1680, and the bit is ignored. For example, voltage line 1670 illustrates a voltage level that falls to a dominant level but raises to a recessive level after 11 time quanta and falls to a dominant level again after 12 time quanta and raises again to recessive level after 15 time quanta. Because the receiver sampled a recessive level at the Sample Point (SP), the bit is ignored as a SOF bit.
In other words,
In this way, the start of frame bit for a standard CAN communication can be used to force a resynchronization of modules between sequences of second or embedded higher frequency protocols to reduce transmission errors caused by poorly synchronized time event generators for various modules on the control network. Generally speaking, in a situation where a second message is embedded within a first protocol's message packet and a receiving device adjusts a position of the sample point within the received first protocol bit in response to sensing a transition edge within a defined portion of the received first protocol bit, a device can transmit a series of bits according to the first protocol having the transition edge to effect movement of the sample point for a receiving communication device to provide additional room within a first protocol bit in which to embed the second message using the second protocol. In such an approach where the CAN protocol is the first protocol, if the Sync_Seg following a recessive bit would be set to dominant level, the oscillator accuracy problem across modules would be reduced because all of the modules' clocks would be re-synchronized at every bit. The re-synchronization and Synchronization Jump Width (SJW) rules of CAN would not be needed. Modules on the control network configured to only understand the standard CAN message will sample within Phase_Seg 1 and Phase_Seg 2 thirteen bit quanta after last resynchronization. As the example new protocol generates a dominant Sync_Seg, such original CAN controllers will resynchronize at least every second recessive bit but only at the sixth bit after five consecutive dominant bits. Regardless, this resynchronization is twice as soon as the thirteen bit requirement, thereby keeping the various modules sufficiently synched.
Moreover, the original CAN modules can be tricked into moving their sampling points to allow for more room within a CAN bit to transmit second protocol information. For instance, a second protocol module's processing device can transmit the series of bits according to the first protocol having the transition edge by sending a series of recessive bits where a Sync_Seg bit quantum of a following bit is dominant to provide the transition edges to effect the movement of the sampling point. The second protocol module's processing device can also transmit the second message using the second protocol at least in part within bits transmitted using the CAN protocol in portions of the bits other than Sync_Seg bit quantum and the sample point such as using Prop-Seg portions of the CAN message packet. The transition edge need not have the full width of a Sync_Seg as defined within a CAN protocol; instead the edge can have the length sufficient for detection by the modules on the communication network.
To detect voltage levels at every time quantum, the second register 1630 can be programmed with particular counts to trigger either the event logic detector 1553 or a second processing device 1505 to sample voltages at bit quanta other than those defined for the typical CAN standard. In this way, bits can be sampled at different bit rates from decoding voltage levels on the bus according to the CAN specification in addition to other embedded protocols using the LTime Domain. The system does not require use of Physical time or Natural Time where the connection to NTime is through the oscillator 1522. The oscillator 1522 could be replaced by anything that generates a stream of events, such as a magnetic pickup sensing the tips of a turning cogwheel. Accordingly, a CAN network could be built where all ECUs are connected to the magnetic pickup, and CAN messages would be correctly encoded and decoded but the bit rate per second would vary with the rpm of the cogwheel.
If local oscillators are used as Time-tick Generators in a system, the frequency of the time quanta defined by the various time-tick generators 1520 at the respective ECUs within the system should be synchronized. This can be done in two ways, either by adjusting the frequency of a given oscillator or by adding or deleting Time-tick events to/from the time-tick generation stream 1525. Either approach can be effected though feedback between nodes over the control network 1511 and/or via control signals from a master node on the control network 1511.
Controlling the voltage level for every time quantum can provide further benefits beyond embedding a second protocol. For example, the CAN standard is often accused of being power hungry. A way to reduce the power would be to transmit a dominant level only during the Sync_Seg and Phase Seg 1 and 2, thus reducing the transmission power as compared to leaving the voltage level high.
If the second protocol is employed within a standard CAN message, certain advantages can be realized by indicating the new protocol though setting the RTR, r1, and r0 bits all to the recessive level. After the RTR bit. all CAN controllers are resynchronized to the transmitting node by sensing the falling edge from the recessive RTR bit whereby the embedded second protocol can embed data in the CAN message from there on. By one approach, the r1, r0, and DLC bits can be used to indicate how many second protocol bits will be embedded in each CAN bit. As the second protocol can have its own time quantum definition, it is possible to have a higher resolution, and thus more than one embedded bit in a CAN time quantum. In some approaches, only one extra bit is embedded in the standard CAN bits, which embedded extra bit is sampled between the Sync_Seg and Phase_Seg 1 time quanta to minimize influence by wave reflections on the physical bus that in some application can increase a data error rate.
Specific Considerations for Implementation in a Legacy CAN Communication System
In legacy CAN systems, resynchronization of modules occurs where a dominant signal in the Sync-Segment follows a recessive bit. This is the rule for all legacy CAN to better adjust the sampling point relative to this edge. In general, legacy CAN systems leave open a space around the sampling point to confirm receipt of the signal because errors in timing may result in receipt of the signal by some time before or after the sampling point. By effecting such a resynchronization a number of times, a module communicating using the second protocol described above will have confirmed the location of the legacy CAN sampling point to be much more accurate than the usual time allotted before and after the legacy CAN sampling point using SJW rules thereby securing additional space within a legacy CAN bit for second protocol communications. For example, if more edges effecting a resynchronization of legacy CAN system modules are produced, the sample point can be moved to the theoretically correct location in-between Phase-Segment1 and Phase-Segment2 allowing for almost all of the Phase-Segment1 and Phase-Segment2 to be available for second protocol data. In short, all recessive bits followed by this dominant Sync-Seg will adjust the sampling point for the legacy CAN systems, and this feature can be used by a second communication protocol module to make additional room within a legacy CAN bit for second protocol communications.
In legacy CAN it is possible to have a sequence of ten bits without an edge, however, and if those bits are all recessive and the second protocol does not send a dominant signal to effect a resynchronization, the second protocol will be limited in the amount of the phase segment available for use in sending second protocol data because of uncertainty in the location of the actual legacy CAN sampling point. Instead, frequent adjustment of the sampling point confirms for the second protocol modules that the legacy CAN sampling point will use only a small portion of the phase-segments thereby making available more space in the phase segment before the location of the sampling point in which second protocol data may be sent. Placing second protocol bits after the legacy CAN modules have sampled recessive will cause edges to be used for resynchronization, which limits the ability to send second protocol data in the phase segment after the legacy CAN sampling point.
When the legacy CAN system samples a dominant signal, however, it will ignore any edge after the sample point such that the second protocol modules can insert additional data in the second phase segment after the legacy CAN sample point. Accordingly, a module can increase the amount of room in which second protocol data may be inserted into a legacy CAN bit by balancing the use of resynchronizations to confirm the legacy CAN sample point location versus use of dominant legacy CAN samples to allow insertion of second protocol bits after the legacy CAN sample point. For instance, in the first dominant legacy CAN bit after a series of resynchronization, 90% of the whole phase segment may be available for second protocol communications. In the second dominant legacy CAN bit, 80% of the whole phase segment may be available for second protocol communications as so on until the fifth consecutive dominant legacy CAN bit where 50% of the whole phase segment can be used in addition to all of the propagation segment. Again we have the limitation in legacy CAN that it is against the rules to have more than five consecutive bits with the same sample value. The sixth bit must be recessive, but in this bit it is possible to place high speed bits in all sync-segment and propagation-segment and 40% of phase segment1. After the sample point, then, the signal stays recessive and without any edge until the start of the dominant Sync-Segment following the recessive bit, which edge adjusts the sampling point back to the theoretically correct location. The above cycle then restarts where it is possible to put high-speed bits as soon as the edge is detected and up to 90% of the whole phase-segment. In practice, the Sync-Segment should be just as long as necessary for all modules on the bus to recognize the dominant edge following the recessive sample. If the dominant Sync-Segment is too short, some legacy CAN nodes may not recognize the signal to resynchronize. In this example implementation, the CRC-part of the message will vary with the different bits in the CAN-frame up to the start of the CRC.
In this implementation, the system should confirm correct sampling of the second protocol. In one example, if you need to adjust the sample point every ten bits in legacy CAN to keep in the sample location within the bit, the system may more or less do it equally often in the second protocol for the high speed bits. If the Phase segment is 20% of the legacy CAN bit, most of the bit is for propagation segment and it is only the phase segments that are needed to compensate for clock deviation. So if the if first protocol can handle clock deviation over ten bits with 20% of the bit, then the second protocol will handle 100 bits in a stream until a resynchronization is demanded in the example where the communication is unidirectional and the only compensation needed is the clock deviation between sender and the receiving nodes because high speed bits have no use of the propagation segment. Typically, it is the receiver with the least accurate clock that will set the performance of the physical layer. If the clock performance is even better it will be possible to have even more bits in a row before it is necessary to have an edge where it is possible to resynchronize to get the sample point better located in the bit. The other extreme would be to have a very small propagation segment (in the case where a communication bus, for example, has a short cable and very unstable clocks) where most of the Legacy CAN bit is used for phase segments. In this case will it be necessary to resynchronize almost every 10 bit in the secondary protocol.
There are no theoretical limits with respect to the relation between the legacy CAN (first protocol) bit-rate and the second protocol bit-rate because the only restriction is that the second protocol bits do not cause the Legacy CAN modules to sample second protocol bits or use the second protocol bits in such way that they will resynchronize the first protocol units in a wrong way. As an example, we have tested communications where the second protocol bit-rate was 80,000 times the first protocol bit-rate. In such case there will be about 40,000 second protocol bits in every first protocol bit (assuming that the propagation segment is about 50% of the first protocol bit). In such case, we resynchronize the second protocol at least 400 times if the clocks demand resynchronization every 100 bits.
At those extreme numbers a very precise location of the first bit is used in the second protocol. Even if you have a precise dominant edge in the sync-segment in a first protocol bit divided into ten time quanta, the second protocol bit will be out of sync already by 2.5% into the Sync-Segment quanta at the end of the sync-segment, and the second protocol receiver could be 40 bits out of phase with the sender. In those cases, the second protocol starts with an edge to secure that the following samplings in the second protocol sample in the correct location, and resynchronization in second protocol should occur every 100 second protocol bits as well as with a first protocol bit.
Implementation of an Additional Synchronization with CAN-FD
Although implementation of a second protocol within a first protocol is described above primarily in terms of adding bits inside of a legacy CAN bit, aspects of the second protocol described above may be implemented into or combined with other protocols such as the CAN-FD protocol as described in the paper CAN with Flexible Data-Rate Specification Version 1.0 (release Apr. 17, 2012), which paper is incorporated by reference in its entirety herein. The CAN-FD protocol defines a first part of a transmission that largely follows the rules of the legacy CAN protocol. After this initial transmission portion, a message sent according to CAN-FD can switch to a higher bit rate. CAN-FD uses an edge (Extended Data Length (EDL) bit) between the Identifier Extension Flag (IDE) bit and the r0 bit that defines the start of the CAN-FD higher speed portion, which edge is also used as the last synchronization before entering a high speed portion of the transmission. The start of the high speed transmission portion, however, is delayed until the switch in bit rate at the Bit Rate Switch (BRS) bit, which delay can result in variance of the receiver's clock with respect to a high speed portion sampling point. The lack of having a resynchronization built into the high speed portion of the CAN-FD protocol can result in a need for higher quality clocks and a limit in the ability to improve sampling speed at the high speed portion of the protocol, thereby limiting the overall possible bandwidth.
If the resynchronization approach described above with respect to the second protocol implementation in a legacy CAN system is applied to the high speed portion of CAN-FD, a CAN-FD approach could have a much higher bandwidth because of increased confidence in sampling at the higher speed sampling point. For instance, by defining an edge in the first bit of the high speed portion of the CAN-FD protocol (or just after the BRS bit) for resynchronization, the receiver will sample very correctly in the very first bit, and after some number of bits there will be edges in the bit-stream that can be used to resynchronize the sampling point to a proper location in the received bits. Thus, a sending module's processing device may send a dominant bit following a recessive signal to define an edge at a beginning of the second portion of the message such that the modified CAN-FD protocol is defined in part by a receiving device adjusting a position of a sample point for second high speed portion bits in response to sensing the edge. For example, in CAN-FD this new resynchronization edge can be located in the high speed portion of CAN-FD directly after the BRS bit is sampled or as the finish of the BRS bit/start the high speed portion, where in the slower portion of the protocol the next bit slower portion bit would have started. Delay in high speed implementation relative to synchronization is largely eliminated because the edge of the first detected high speed bit defines the start of the high speed portion of the CAN-FD message. The only drawback in this solution is that the first high speed portion bit is defined as dominant to have this bit define the start of the high speed portion. Tests confirm that it is at least possible to have a bit rate ratio of 1 legacy CAN bits to 80,000 CAN-FD bits if this synchronization technique is applied to the CAN-FD protocol.
Those skilled in the art will recognize that a wide variety of modifications, alterations, and combinations can be made with respect to the above described embodiments without departing from the scope of the invention, and that such modifications, alterations, and combinations are to be viewed as being within the ambit of the inventive concept.
This application is a continuation in part of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/833,238, filed Mar. 15, 2013, the contents of which are incorporated by reference as though fully re-written herein.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5696911 | Fredriksson | Dec 1997 | A |
| 7103688 | Strong | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7243143 | Bullard | Jul 2007 | B1 |
| 7472216 | Fredriksson et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7478234 | Fredriksson | Jan 2009 | B2 |
| 7711880 | Fredriksson | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7899936 | Fredriksson et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7934039 | Fredriksson et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 8065052 | Fredriksson et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8321612 | Hartwich et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
| 20020126691 | Strong | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20050105534 | Osterling | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050251701 | Fredriksson | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20080195747 | Elmaliah | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20110013564 | Zou et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2521319 | Nov 2012 | EP |
| 2990784 | May 2012 | FR |
| 2007166423 | Jun 2007 | JP |
| 0062486 | Oct 2000 | WO |
| 2004019584 | Mar 2004 | WO |
| 2012150248 | Nov 2012 | WO |
| 2013000911 | Jan 2013 | WO |
| 2013000916 | Jan 2013 | WO |
| 2013020781 | Feb 2013 | WO |
| 2013030095 | Mar 2013 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Imran, S., et al.; “Improving information throughput in CAN networks: Implementing the dual-speed approach”; Embedded Systems Laboratory, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH; published 2009; 6 pages. |
| Ziermann, T., et al.; “CAN+: A new backward-compatible Controller Area Network (CAN) protocol with up to 16x higher data rates”; Hardware/Software, Co-Design, Department of Computer Science, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg; 6 pages. |
| Herrewege, V. A., et al.; “CANAuth—A Simple, Backward Compatible Broadcast Authentication Protocol for CAN Bus”; Ku Leuven Research & Development (University), Belgium; published 2011; 7 pages. |
| Hartwich, F., et al.; “The Configuration of the CAN Bit Timing”, presented at 6th International CAN Conference; Nov. 2-4, 1999; Turin, Italy; published by CAN in Automation (CiA); Nuernberg, Germany; 10 pages. |
| Robert Bosch GmbH; Web Pages “CAN With Flexible Data-Rate”; Aug. 2011; http://www.bosch-semiconductors.de/media/pdf—1canliteratur/can—fd.pdf; 14 pages. |
| Swedish Standards Institute; SS-ISO 11898-1; “Road Vehicles-Controller Area Network (CAN), Part 1: Data Link Layer and Physical Signalling”; Dated Dec. 5, 2003; Published Jan. 2004; 51 pages. |
| Swedish Standards Institute; SS-ISO 11898-1; “Road Vehicles-Controller Area Network (CAN), Part 1: Data Link Layer and Physical Signalling”; Dated Dec. 5, 2003; Published Jan. 2004; Updated 2006; 51 pages. |
| Robert Bosch GmbH; “CAN With Flexible Data-Rate”; Apr. 17, 2012; www.bosch-semiconductors.de/media/pdf—1/canliteratur/can—fd.pdf; 34 pages. |
| International Search Report for PCT/US2014/027794 mailed Jul. 29, 2014; 9 pages. |
| Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US2014/027794 mailed Jul. 29, 2014; 15 pages. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20140280636 A1 | Sep 2014 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 13833238 | Mar 2013 | US |
| Child | 13965342 | US |
