long SPI communication unreliable

[choehyunho]

Hi teams,

I have build custom board connected to ethernet via ENC28J60 ethernet controller.

It uses SPI communication with ENC28J60, but some strange behaviour during bulk TX/RX.

Please see the following codes.

#if 0
    nrf_drv_spi_xfer_desc_t datadesc = NRF_DRV_SPI_XFER_RX(buf, len);
    APP_ERROR_CHECK(nrf_drv_spi_xfer(&spi, &datadesc, 0));
#else
    for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
        nrf_drv_spi_xfer_desc_t datadesc = NRF_DRV_SPI_XFER_RX(buf + i, sizeof(uint8_t));
        APP_ERROR_CHECK(nrf_drv_spi_xfer(&spi, &datadesc, 0));
    }
#endif
...
...
#if 0
    nrf_drv_spi_xfer_desc_t datadesc = NRF_DRV_SPI_XFER_TX(buf, len);
    APP_ERROR_CHECK(nrf_drv_spi_xfer(&spi, &datadesc, 0));
#else
    for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
        nrf_drv_spi_xfer_desc_t datadesc = NRF_DRV_SPI_XFER_TX(buf + i, sizeof(uint8_t));
        APP_ERROR_CHECK(nrf_drv_spi_xfer(&spi, &datadesc, 0));
    }
#endif

These codes are extracted my data tx/rx functions.

The #if 0 blocks should not be different from active ones, but in real, it does not work.

Why this happens?

[awneil]

choehyunho said:

some strange behaviour

Would you care to be a little less vague?

choehyunho said:

it does not work

http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#code

What testing / debugging / investigation have you done to find the problem ?

What have you found so far ?

https://www.avrfreaks.net/comment/2418156#comment-2418156

EDIT

choehyunho said:

The #if 0 blocks should not be different from active ones

Well, one key difference is that one uses 'buf' and the other 'buf+1' ...

[choehyunho]

The above codes are extracted from my actual driver code.

The disabled block fails with various errors. Maybe incorrect data sent/received.

In the other hands, the active block is working fine.

This is why I am asking, and why the single bulk transfer is working differently with multiple single transfers.

I cannot understand what you mean. Which one is sending/receiving (buf + 1) numbers of data?

Give your great answer for me.

[awneil]

choehyunho said:

The disabled block fails with various errors

You need to quantify that!

A key part of debugging is getting a proper handle of what is actually going wrong!

Have you used a scope of analyser to see what's happening on the wire?

choehyunho said:

the active block is working fine

So why not just do that?

The obvious difference at first sight is that one does it as a single transaction, but the other as individual bytes - so the timing is clearly going to be different. And, perhaps, the use of the Slave Select ... ?

choehyunho said:

Which one is sending/receiving (buf + 1) numbers of data

That's not what I said.

But I misread the code anyhow: I thought it said '1' - not 'i' - so ignore that comment!

Sorry.

But maybe avoid the use of single-letter variable names.

[choehyunho]

First, I admit that I missed one thing to explain.

This SPI connection is made with spi_config.ss_pin   = NRF_DRV_SPI_PIN_NOT_USED;.

It is because transmitting single byte command and transmitting multple bytes immediately cannot be expressed with single nrf_drv_spi_xfer() call.

So, I first lower SS pin as GPIO output, and after transfer, up it.

With this condition, the two codes SHOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME, AFAIK.

The extra delay with for{} loop may caused difference, but normally it should not, if the nrf_drv_spi_xfer() is properly made.

So, does it mean nrf_drv_spi_xfer() for multiple bytes has timing bug?

[Edvin]

Hello,

You say that the #if 0 block doesn't work. Does nrf_drv_spi_xfer() return something other than 0 (NRF_SUCCESS) when you use this block? Have you tried analyzing the SPI wires when using this block? What does it look like compared to the other block?