Mac,
I have modified the Si570 class so that I could initialize it and pass
the register values manually. Using Jerry's register values, I was
able to reproduce the bug.
And I can confirm that the problem is fixed by the code you sent.
Good news is that it is not dependent on where it is compiled computer
and it should work for everyone now.
I have used your version which I liked better and made a PR for farhan:
https://github.com/afarhan/radiono/pull/7
Jerry, I am very confident this fixes your problem but could you give
it a try?
Download it with this zip file:
https://github.com/sarfata/radiono/archive/fix-si570-stuck-bug.zip
Now of course, we want to understand what was going on. It was not
obvious...
Line 87, we used to do:
dcoFrequency|=this->dco_reg[11]<<8;
When we do this, the compiler extends the sign-bit (the most
significant bit) to the left before it does the OR operation. With my
Si570, I had 0x77 so this bit was 0 but Jerry had 0xbf and therefore a
1. This is what messed up completely the rest of the calculations...
I checked and apparently the problem is that we were shifting a 8 bit
number (uint8_t) by 8 bits and the results seem to be undefined.
73,
thomas
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Mac A. Cody <maccody@xxxxxxx
<mailto:maccody@xxxxxxx>>wrote:
Jerry,
Apparently the last few lines of the experimental Arduino sketch I
sent
you left out some code.
After these lines of code:
//set the initial frequency
vfo->setFrequency(SI570_NEW_FREQUENCY);
add the following lines of code:
delay(3000);
// This will print some debugging info to the serial console.
vfo->debugSi570();
Please rerun the tests. This explains why you did not get the second
set of serial output. That is one thing I DO NOT LIKE about the
Arduino IDE. Compiling is done in the IDE environment and code
changes are not saved to the source files unless done explicitly.
If the Arduino IDE were to crash before an explicit save, a lot of
changes could be lost. I consider this to be a bad bug. Auto-save
of source code changes during compile is a must.
73,
Mac AE5PH
On 03/29/2014 02:39 PM, jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
Thomas, attached are tests I did, including the testing.ino
that Mac
sent me. We were checking to see if the chip would change
frequencies.
It did, I made three tests. All with my original board. With
the new
board, I loaded ver. 0.030 and got the results attached as,
"newdigoboard". This is when I thought maybe my board had a
trace that
was bad, and I took my soldering iron and was going to pull
solder down
the traces to thicken them. I didn't realize that I still had
the power
to the board on and when I touched the soldering iron to the
trace I
fried the si570. So I'm back to one board. But when I started
up the
ver. 0.030 before I fried the chip, it said I had a comm
error. My old
board never gave that message. Before I loaded ver 0.030 on
the new
board the testing sketch was the same as the old board. I
bought both
chips from DigiKey and they have the same "CAC000141G" on the
chip. I
will run any tests you need me to. Jerry
K5LRU
Harwood, Texas
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [minima] Re: Ver.0.030 code problems
From: Thomas Sarlandie <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sat, March 29, 2014 1:26 pm
To: "minima@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:minima@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<minima@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:minima@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Frank, Jerry,
I think at this point we are pretty sure that the bug is
because we are
using different variants of the Si570. I am working on it
now to make a
v0.0.4 that would work for everyone.
Jerry, to help me test my changes, can you send me the
output of the serial
console when you start your second minima?
Every Si570 is different and I will run the maths manually
to make sure
there is no bug in the source code anymore.
thanks!
thomas
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Frank <w4nhj@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:w4nhj@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Jerry,
I use a Mac, you know I believe Thomas also uses a
Mac. I wonder if you
have hit on something.
Frank - W4NHJ
-
On 3/29/14, 1:14 PM, jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
Frank, thanks for sending the files, I will compare
the code to mine.
What operating system do you run your Arduino software
with? Jerry
K5LRU
Harwood, Texas
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [minima] Re: Ver.0.030 code problems
From: Frank <w4nhj@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:w4nhj@xxxxxxxxxxx>> <w4nhj@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:w4nhj@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sat, March 29, 2014 11:03 am
To: minima@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:minima@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jerry,
I tested my digital board with the V0.03 firmware and
it works. I could
send you the three files I have and you can see if
that works. Perhaps
something was changed in the firmware that is on
Github now, but I doubt it.
Frank - W4NHJ
-
On 3/29/14, 11:34 AM, Celso - PY2XT wrote:
Hi Jerry and folks,
I have the same problem with my digital board, just
like you.
I will continue researching and wait for help from
more experienced friends.
73 to all.
Celso - PY2XT.
De: jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Enviada: Sábado, 29 de Março de 2014 07:02
Para: minima@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:minima@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Assunto: [minima] Ver.0.030 code problems
I bought a new si570, built a new digi-board, and
guess what, I still
have the same problem. The si570 is frozen at 56.3
Mhz. I got a test
sketch from Mac (I put my callsign in the code to make
sure I was
pulling up the right file through Arduino) see
attachment, and I am able
to change the frequency of the si570 with the sketch
which proves the
I2C bus is working OK. The chip puts out a clean
signal at around 2.84v
peak to peak, (see attachments). With Farhan's
original sketch, the
si570 will tune. I think I've read everything there is
on the internet
about the I2C buss, and I don't think that's my
problem, unless it is
running too fast with the new version code. I made my
own digi board
pcb, but it was from Adrian's design, so it should be
the same as
everyone else. The voltages on the si570 are at 3.274.
I'm out of ideas.
I need help. Jerry
K5LRU
Harwood, Texas
