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]
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
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?
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?
Fast-forward to 1991, and we find that sex education online was still in its nascent stages. However, there were already several notable initiatives underway. , a Dutch term translating to “sexual education” or “sex guidance,” was a key area of focus for online resources.
While these online resources marked an important step forward in the dissemination of sex education, they were not without challenges and limitations. was a significant issue, as many people lacked access to the internet or the necessary technical skills to navigate online platforms.
The landscape of sex education has undergone significant changes over the years, with the rise of the internet playing a substantial role in shaping how we access and engage with information about sexual health. In 1991, the online world was still in its infancy, but it was already becoming a vital resource for those seeking information on sensitive topics like sex education. In this article, we’ll take a nostalgic look back at the online sex education resources available in 1991 and explore their significance in the context of the time.
Today, we have a wealth of online resources at our disposal, but we must continue to prioritize in our efforts to promote sexual health and well-being. By doing so, we can build on the legacy of pioneers in online sex education and create a future where everyone has access to the information and support they need to make informed choices about their sexual health.
One of the earliest online sex education resources was the (Sexually Communicative Persons Union Society) website, which emerged in the late 1980s and gained popularity in the early 1990s. SCPUS aimed to provide a safe and anonymous space for individuals to access information about sex, relationships, and reproductive health.
Moreover, were concerns, as the lack of regulation and quality control meant that misinformation and biased content could spread quickly.
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.