PSoC™ Creator & Designer Forum Discussions

We're trying to create a single project template that can run on multiple machines and reference a set of common libraries without requiring manual intervention to set dozens of include paths on every machine individually. The ideal solution is to simply have each user create an environment variable with the same name that points to the library parent directory for their specific machine.  

Is there a way to pass a system environment variable as an include path to the ARM-GCC compiler when it is invoked via PSoC Creator? From the command line I can just run

arm-none-eabi-gcc -I%MY_PATH% main.c

This evaluates just fine, however when invoked from within PSoC Creator MY_PATH does not get evaluated (I have verified that it does exist within the environment of the application). My guess is that it's something to do with the way in which PSoC Creator is spawning the app, it's not simply invoking a command line and it's passing the variable as a literal.

Alternatively is there a way to manually create a custom PSoC Creator build macro which does get evaluated before being passed to the compiler? (Such as ${OutputDir}, ${WorkspaceDir} etc.) 

For reference setting C_INCLUDE_PATH as a system variable does work but it's not ideal as it will also pull those include directories into every other unrelated project built using any GCC version.

Rolf Nooteboom helped develop a technique for writing and compiling firmware for PSOC5 on Linux and Macintosh (and Windows).  The overall system uses the free VSCode from Microsoft, the ARM compiler from ARM itself, some of the Modus Toolbox work Cypress put into previous versions of ModusToolbox(tm).

The upside to his work is the entire project's build finishes in seconds on Mac or Linux vs. minutes natively. (The minutes is when building under Windows using Creator).  I was able to take his work and stumble into modifying it for using a KitProg (as well as kitprog 2 or 3).   The pattern for the project directory was also changed, making it easy to use as a template for future projects, and with FreeRTOS.  (Yes, a complete FreeRTOS rebuild takes seconds on a Mac.)

I wrote several blog posts on this at socmaker.com.  My guide for coding/compiling on Linux (which is built on the previous blogs) is at https://socmaker.com/?p=1119 .  You have to create the schematic with PSOC Creator first.  (I use a virtual machine running windows 7, 64 bit to accomplish this.)  Then finish with the firmware development on your native O.S.

Previous posts at socmaker.com cover the Macintosh side.  Enjoy

Hello,

I have been using PSoC Creator 4.4 for some time now and have been unable to download the example code for some weeks now.

When I select Code Example from the File menu in PSoC Creator, all that appears is code that has already been downloaded.

I think this is probably the same cause of this problem. Please fix it ASAP.

Regards,

Shimamura

Hello,

I've just downloaded the PSoC Creator 4.4 and I'm trying to build an exisiting project. However, I can't do it as PSoC Creator can't update it's components to the required versions:

My project needs cy_boot to be version 6.10, but only 6.0 is available. Also, it need cy_isr to be 1.71, but only 1.70 is available.

According to Help -> Update Manager, everything is up to date:

Here is some information about my environment, installed products etc, Help -> About:

I've already tried a lot of things to solve this problem. Probably the only thing I didn't do is to reinstall the OS 🙂 

I have a feeling that PSoC Creator is not able to download these required components from some remote server(s). This guess is also supported by what I found in the PSoC Creator logs (C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Local\Temp\PSoC Creator-000.log):

Unable to download latest online manifest: The underlying connection was closed: Could not establish trust relationship for the SSL/TLS secure channel.

It should also be mentioned that this problem is observed for different computers located on different networks. That is why I think the problem is related to some server, and not to the computer.

Dear Community Members,

I found a strange behaviour of nested void functions (void functions under other void functions),

I would like to ask community members : is it a feature/expected behaviour or bug ?

let me show you:

background info:

PSoC Creator 4.4 (4.4.0.80) with latest updates, CY8CKIT-059 PSoC 5LP Prototyping Kit 1.0 Rev.*A

setup: from desktop C# I communicate with PSoC firmware by USBFS sending commands to PSOC (DMA auto management) to call different functions, like :

under main  for(;;)
{

// Is there any new Out transaction..

  //  Data parsing ...

    // call correspoding function, e.g.:

Beep_VERY_Short_Nx( 3u); // 3x Beep by toggling pins of a buzzer and led

// important1: beep function takes time to run down

// important2: every line in beep function are void functions -see later 

}

my Beep function:

void  Beep_VERY_Short_Nx (uint32_t Nx ) // N times
{
Pin_BUZZER_Write(1u); // BUZZER default (POR) off: silent
for (uint32_t i = 0; i < Nx; i++)
{
Pin_BUZZER_Write(0u); // pull down => beep
CyDelay(25);
Pin_BUZZER_Write(1u); // pull UP => silent
CyDelay(25);
}
}

So far everything is fine, as expected, nothing special.

First case:

If I call this beep function It return immediately. I mean the function runs fine from start to end, but  in line in time (the order in which events occur) is:

1.) call Beep function,

2.) Beep function returns immediately (I see it as my firmware reply to desktop program by USBFS), this is my real quation.

3.)  hear the beeps as expected but after point 2, not before point 2.

(beep runs like as async / non-blocking function in PSoC 5lp)

let me emphasize: all functions in the body of beep function are voids:

as  void Pin... Write(); and void CyDelay(); functions are void functions.

If I rewrite the beep function method signature to non-void and call it, like:

uint8 result = Beep_VERY_Short_Nx( 3u );

The  order is:

1.) call Beep function

2.) beeps as expected

3.) Beep function return in the end of the process.

So, in this second case the code running as expected.

So, my question is: is it (immediately return of an 'all void  function') a feature/expected behaviour (e.g. from compiler optimization) or bug ?

Thanks for your kind reply,

Best Regards,

Péter