Migrate CLI over CDC/ACM to project open_bootloader_mbr, but stuck in cli_write

[OceanS]

Hi support, 

Firstly, environment as below, 

(1) upon SDK (nRF5_SDK_15.3.0_59ac345)

(2) Nordic Open_Bootloader (example project: Open_bootloader_usb_mbr_pca10056_debug) 

(3) Nordic 52840 DK (PCA10056)

What I am doing is just try to migrate CLI over CDC/ACM to project open_bootloader_mbr, but stuck in cli_write and would not get out as below,  

Can anyone tell me why please? Thanks a lot.

FYI, I have separate the configuration of CLI_CDC/ACM away from that of DFU_CDC/ACM as below,

(1) Setting of  CLI_CDC/ACM

//==========================================================

// <h> nrf_cli_cdc_acm - CDC ACM command line interface transport

//==========================================================
// <q> NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_ENABLED  - Enable/disable the CLI CDC ACM module.
 

#ifndef NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_ENABLED
#define NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_ENABLED 1
#endif

// <o> NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_COMM_INTERFACE - COMM interface number. 
#ifndef NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_COMM_INTERFACE
#define NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_COMM_INTERFACE 0
#endif

// <s> NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_COMM_EPIN - COMM IN endpoint number.
#ifndef NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_COMM_EPIN
#define NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_COMM_EPIN NRF_DRV_USBD_EPIN2
#endif

// <o> NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_DATA_INTERFACE - DATA interface number. 
#ifndef NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_DATA_INTERFACE
#define NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_DATA_INTERFACE 1
#endif

// <s> NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_DATA_EPIN - DATA IN endpoint number.
#ifndef NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_DATA_EPIN
#define NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_DATA_EPIN NRF_DRV_USBD_EPIN1
#endif

// <s> NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_DATA_EPOUT - DATA OUT endpoint number.
#ifndef NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_DATA_EPOUT
#define NRF_CLI_CDC_ACM_DATA_EPOUT NRF_DRV_USBD_EPOUT1
#endif

(2) Setting of DFU_CDC/ACM

#define CDC_ACM_COMM_INTERFACE          2//0
#define CDC_ACM_COMM_EPIN               NRF_DRV_USBD_EPIN4//NRF_DRV_USBD_EPIN2
#define CDC_ACM_DATA_INTERFACE          3//1
#define CDC_ACM_DATA_EPIN               NRF_DRV_USBD_EPIN3//NRF_DRV_USBD_EPIN1
#define CDC_ACM_DATA_EPOUT              NRF_DRV_USBD_EPOUT2//NRF_DRV_USBD_EPOUT1

Regards

J.S.

[Einar Thorsrud]

Hi,

Can explain/show all the change you have done in the bootloader in order to add CLI support? Out of curiosity I also wonder why you want this in the bootloader?

[OceanS]

Hi Einar, 

Thanks for your response. Let me explain you the second question firstly, 

Re-

Einar Thorsrud said:

Out of curiosity I also wonder why you want this in the bootloader?

The product would only talk to an another embedded system via CDC/ACM over USB. So, CLI would be the only way to do maintainance once it is published to customer side. 

J.S. 

[OceanS]

Hi,

Re-APP_USBD_CDC_ACM_USER_EVT_PORT_CLOSE, I don't think so because at this moment the port physically is still going on firmly. For CLI, it is acceptable to get some packages lost. 

Actually so far I am not so satisfied with my current software structure because everything is running in a big forever loop and I couldn't predict any CPU consumption or CPU block. I am fond of your task_manager, however I hesitate a bit due to reasons as below, 

(1) Not sure how mature your task_manager is. Is it still in experiment period?  

(2) Not enough support document to get me know how to migrate an example to task_manager. I know there is only one example BLE_APP_CLI which is developed upon task_manager. However it is still not enough. For example, how to migrate a bootloader file transfer instance to task_manager?

 Any suggestion? Thanks

J.S.

[Einar Thorsrud]

Hi,

1. Yes, the task_manager is still experimental.

2. We do not have any documentation for this (or similar). I advise against doing significant changes in the bootloader unless you have a good reason for it. We have put significant effort into the bootloader example, and it should work more or less out of the box in most use cases.

[OceanS]

Hi, 

Einar Thorsrud said:

I advise against doing significant changes in the bootloader unless you have a good reason for it. We have put significant effort into the bootloader example, and it should work more or less out of the box in most use cases.

I never wonder about the core implementation of bootloader, otherwise I would not select this as my base. However, please jump out the scope of the core feature of a bootloader. Let's start from a view of a commercial product, just imagine in some case after an application upgrade,

(1) The main application run into some panic situations, for example it would repeatedly reset the system before enter DFU mode (usb_dfu_bootloader_start_finalize).

(2) The worst case that this product would run in remote area and unattended, as well for some reason there is no button for bootloader-enter, which would be no use in most cases for an remote&unattended product.

So, could we get some assistance in bootloader to rescue the product? Seems that it could, just like uboot or some others. I don't expect the bootloader running in Nordic would be as complicate as uboot, but I need some methods to help the main application. 

rgs

J.S. 

[Einar Thorsrud]

Hi,

Can you elaborate on what you would like the bootloader to do, when and how? If the idea is to have a way to recover from faulty application using something like a golden image, then you could think of this as an alternative that requires minimal changes to the bootloader (I don't know how it fits with your product, though):

• If the bootloader detects that the reset reason is watchdog reset or CPU lock-up, enter DFU mode.
• When nRF enters DFU mode unexpectedly, the host CPU can assume that there is a problem with the application, and do some of the following (whatever is appropriate in your case):
  • choose to perform a DFU update (if that is what you need to recover)
  • delete flash regions used to store application data (if that is what causes problems). This could be triggered by the bootloader itself if safe, or you could expand the DFU protocol, etc. This is perhaps a task where you would use CLI?

However, depending on your application, it would also make sense to investigate to what degree the application is capable of "messing itself up". Generally, adding more logic (which can potentially introduce more bugs an issues) to fix issues that may never occur is not necessarily a good idea.

[OceanS]

Hi Einar, 

Thanks for your response. Partially agree with you 

Einar Thorsrud said:

adding more logic (which can potentially introduce more bugs an issues)

Anyway, while I am still not satisfied with my current implementation as I stated above like no mature task management etc., just let's close this ticket since I already got a workaround.

Thanks again for your time.  

Regards

J.S.