RTC

[CLARAAA]

My COMPILER WARNINGS are only no previous prototype for my two functions
I modified by

Code: [Select]

 
 if(RTC->MODE0.INTFLAG.reg==0)

But I don't understand :

Also, why do you set direction 10 times in a row?

[ataradov]

My COMPILER WARNINGS are only no previous prototype for my two functions

It should complain about statement with no effect on this line "RTC_READREQ_ADDR(0x10);". If it does not, then go into compiler setting and enable all the warnings you can.

I modified by

Ok, so why are you checking for 0?

But I don't understand :

What is this for?

Code: [Select]

   for(int i=0; i<10;i++)
PORT->Group[0].DIRSET.reg = PORT_PA09;


[CLARAAA]

The loop was kind of delay but I can take it off and put it this way

[CLARAAA]

But the major problem is in the COnfig_RTC () function when I would do:

Code: [Select]


RTC->MODE0.READREQ.reg |= RTC_READREQ_RCONT|    //Read continuously
  RTC_READREQ_ADDR(0x10);

[ataradov]

But the major problem is in the COnfig_RTC () function when I would do:

What's the problem?

Have you looked at my MCU starter projects - https://github.com/ataradov/mcu-starter-projects/tree/master/samd21 ? There is a working timer implementation. It is nt based on RTC, but I don't see why it would matter in this case.

[MarkF]

I can't figure out what the program suppose to do.
Maybe, the OP can describe what he's trying to do and the requirements for the program.  (With OUT talking about WDT and RTC).  A general description would really help.

[ataradov]

He wants to read ADC sample every second based on a timer. At the moment he tries to make timer work. The next stage will be ADC.

[MarkF]

So, all he needs to do is setup a loop in the main routine where he reads the ADC and then has a 1 sec delay at the end. 

If he really needs it to sample at exactly 1Hz, then he could setup a 1Hz timer interrupt that would sample the ADC and set a flag for an infinite loop in the main function where he can check the flag and do whatever processing needs done.  He could read the ADC in the main function instead of the interrupt time in order to get into and out of the interrupt as fast as possible.

[ataradov]

I agree, but it is hard when you have no [embedded] programming experience. And that's exactly what is going on in this thread.

[MarkF]

Okay.  Plus the language barrier.  I have 35+ years of professional software development experience so this all seems trivial to me.

[ataradov]

You still have not fixed RTC_READREQ_ADDR(0x10); thing. I'm not going to help you if you are not going to listen.

I gave you a working code, use it.

Also, start giving more information. If you say "stuck", tell us exactly where it is stuck.

[CLARAAA]

I don't understand because in the datasheet :ADDR is read-only constant of 0x10

[CLARAAA]

In your link it is a function with TC , not a module RTC

[ataradov]

So what? Your C is wrong.

You have two statements:

Code: [Select]

RTC->MODE0.READREQ.reg |= RTC_READREQ_RCONT;    //Read continuously
and

Code: [Select]

  RTC_READREQ_ADDR(0x10);

The first one is fine, the second one has no effect and compiler should complain about it. If it does not, you need to enable warnings. At this point compiler is smarter than you, so you should listen to it and fix any warnings it gives.

It is a valid point that this field is constant fore this specific peripheral, on other peripherals it is not constant. So author of the original code (which you copy-pasted with errors) had intention to indicate that this filed is set to 0x10. This is done for code readability and maintainability.

[ataradov]

In your link it is a function with TC , not a module RTC

I gave you code for RTC as well in this thread.

Why do you need RTC? Is there a real reason for this?

[CLARAAA]

RTC->MODE0.READREQ.reg |= RTC_READREQ_RCONT;            //Read continuously

I tried to compile by removing this line of code, when I removed it remains blocked in the following line of code allows activate the RTC and if I let it rest stop on this line

Code: [Select]

RTC->MODE0.READREQ.reg |= RTC_READREQ_RCONT;    //Read continuously

Even when I delete the statement with ADDR. I find it very strange

[ataradov]

I tried to compile by removing this line of code, when I removed it remains blocked in the following line of code allows activate the RTC and if I let it rest stop on this line

Again, you are not making any sense.

This entire read request thing is completely inconsequential to anything here. It is just a nice optimization.

Even when I delete the statement with ADDR. I find it very strange

The line with ADDR did absolutely nothing. Removing or adding it would not change anything.

[CLARAAA]

so I do not see why it remains locked in this function

[ataradov]

so I do not see why it remains locked in this function

Too bad you would not tell us where it is locked exactly.

And since you won't reply why you need RTC and regular timer will not work, I'll let you deal with this on your own.

[CLARAAA]

it is locked exactly here:

Code: [Select]

RTC->MODE0.READREQ.reg |= RTC_READREQ_RCONT;    //Read continuously
I would like to use the RTC module to use another mode of this module. But first, I'd like to use the RTC in mode 0 .

[ataradov]

There is nothing to lock in this instruction. Furthermore, you can completely remove it with no harm to actual operation of the module.

How do you check that it is locked?

[CLARAAA]

At the launch of the step mode remains locked in this statement and if I delete it blocks the next line concerning the activation of the module RTC

[ataradov]

Switch to disassembly view and step through individual instructions to find out what is happening exactly.

[CLARAAA]

Activation of the RTC module does not happen, but no indication is given me suddenly I do not know what to do

[ataradov]

I told you exactly what to do - "Switch to disassembly view and step through individual instructions to find out what is happening exactly."

This is very basic stuff. If you can't get it to work, then start with known working projects and modify them. There are a lot of thins than can go wrong, and step by step modifications will make it much easier to debug.