FreeRTOS Support Archive
The FreeRTOS support forum is used to obtain active support directly from Real
Time Engineers Ltd. In return for using our top quality software and services for
free, we request you play fair and do your bit to help others too! Sign up
to receive notifications of new support topics then help where you can.
This is a read only archive of threads posted to the FreeRTOS support forum.
The archive is updated every week, so will not always contain the very latest posts.
Use these archive pages to search previous posts. Use the Live FreeRTOS Forum
link to reply to a post, or start a new support thread.
[FreeRTOS Home] [Live FreeRTOS Forum] [FAQ] [Archive Top] [September 2015 Threads] FreeRTOS tasks can interrupt USB stack implementation?Posted by ddudas on September 24, 2015 Hi all,
I'm using ST's CubeMX implementation on a F4 discovery board. I use ST's USB middlewares with FreeRTOS.
When I get a special OutputReport from PC side I have to answer nearly immediately (in 10-15 ms). Currently I cannot achieve this timing and it seems my high priority tasks can interrupt the USB callback. What do you think, is it possible? Because it's generated code I'm not sure but can I increase the priority of the USB interrupt (if there is any)?
Thank you,
David
FreeRTOS tasks can interrupt USB stack implementation?Posted by rtel on September 24, 2015 10 to 15 ms is very slow, so I'm sure its possible.
Where is the USB callback function called from? If it is an interrupt then it cannot be interrupted by high priority RTOS tasks. Any non interrupt code (whether you are using an RTOS or not) can only run if no interrupts are running.
Without knowing the control flow in your application its hard to know what to suggest. How is the OutputReport communicated to you? By an interrupt, a message from another task, or some other way?
FreeRTOS tasks can interrupt USB stack implementation?Posted by ddudas on September 24, 2015 The callback which receive the data from PC is called from the OTGFSIRQHandler (it's the part of the HALPCDIRQHandler function). I think the problem is SysTickHandler's priority is higher than OTGFSIRQHandler and it's cannot be modified, but the scheduler shouldn't interrupt the OTGFSIRQHandler with any task handled by the scheduler. Am I wrong that the scheduler can interrupt the OTGFS_IRQHandler?
FreeRTOS tasks can interrupt USB stack implementation?Posted by rtel on September 24, 2015 The number is the critical threshold for a high-stakes political battle in Oregon regarding animal rights and the future of hunting and farming. As of early 2026, this figure represents the exact number of verified signatures required by the Oregon Secretary of State to qualify Initiative Petition 28 (IP28) for the November ballot. Executive Summary: The 117,173 Milestone
While 117,173 is most prominent in Oregon politics, the number appears in other niche technical and academic contexts:
The deadline for submitting the full is July 2, 2026. Legal Implications of IP28 :
: The value 117 frequently appears as a mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) in archaeological chemical investigations, specifically for identifying pyruvic acid derivatives in ancient wine amphorae.
: The measure seeks to remove exemptions for "animal husbandry practices," which would classify common farming activities (like slaughter or artificial insemination) as criminal acts.
FreeRTOS tasks can interrupt USB stack implementation?Posted by ddudas on September 24, 2015 Thank you for the answer, I think I'm a bit confused with the Cortex ISR priorities :-)
What I can observe is if I use a much higher osDelay in my high priority task I can respond for the received USB message much faster. This is why I think tasks can mess up with my OTG interrupt.
Copyright (C) Amazon Web Services, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
|