PSoC™ Creator & Designer Forum Discussions

Hello Every one,

I want to implement lock in amplification in psoc 5 lp. Is it possible? If yes then how?

Looking forward for your suggestions.

Regards

Awais

Hello All,

How are you? I hope that you are doing good.
My Name is Awais Khan. I am using PSOC in my project for condition monitoring. I am trying to implement "Lock-in-Amplification Technique" for precise data measurement from pressure sensors. I found a document attached. In this document. I am finding it difficult to implement phase control in PSOC.

I shall be very thankful to you if you please could guide me regarding this problem.
Also if you know any other technique for precise data measurement then please tell me.
Looking forward for your reply.

Best Regard

Awais
 

I tried to reduce the amount of memory by replacing the variables "unsigned int" to "char" (32 -> 😎
But memory consumption has increased only. I would like to know the reason.

Hi guys. 

PSoc Designer amazes me. I can not do ordinary operations(in C)..

When I run below code, it does not works.

FuncCb cbfunc = 0;
void main(void)
{
    
    if (0 == cbfunc) {
        f = foo;
        f();
}

But When I run below code, it is working

FuncCb cbfunc = 0;

FuncCb x = 0;
void main(void)
{
    
    if (x == cbfunc) {
        f = foo;
        f();
}

I think it is cast problem. But it is not problem in ANSI C. Does PSoC support all ANSI C rules?

Is there anyone with an idea?

Hi guys,

When I run below code, if lope is working but else loop is not working. But if x deleted and 0 wrote instead of x, it is working. 

I can not see the failure.. Do you have an idea ? (device is CY8C21434 and code is entering else and if loop)

        int x;

if (ENABLE == b_value)

{

*((&PRT0DR) + 0) |= 0x01;

}

else 

{

x = 0;

*((&PRT0DR) + x) &= ~(0x01);

}

I have tried a couple of UDB components that use counters, but it seems they are synchronous to the Bus_Clock.

Our application needs an async clock, as digital PLLs generally create too much jitter (or conversly we may want to run a slow system bus to save power but run a UDB module at high speed)

I attempted to look into the PWM component for example, but the UDB/Verilog files aren't present in the library.

Can anyone tell what PsOC components are synchronous to the system bus clock, and which ones are asynchronous?

 I've read a few forum posts that come close to describing how this may be done, but none of them have so far answered the question.

Basically this is what I need to do:

I have a PSoC Creator 3.2 project for a PSoC3 device. I am using the Keil C51 toolchain. For each output device I need a unique number (let's call it an address) that I hard-code into the source via a #define.

I need to generate 100s of HEX files with different values compiled into the source. What I'd like to be able to do is automate the process so that I can let it run on its own without worrying about it. It is going to be a huge waste of time and effort to manually change the value, re-build the project, and re-name the resulting HEX file for each value.

Ideally for each value change, the output file should contain the value in the filename.

For instance, if the pre-processor is:

#define VALUE  23

the generated output file should be:

firmware_name_XXX_0023.hex

Where XXX is the version number pulled from (or pushed into) another source file. Or something like that. If I had control over the generated filename that would be even better.

I recognize that I can pass DF flags to c51, but that is only part of the process.

In any other (non-Cypress) project, I'd have a Makefile where I could script the generation process. However, because of the layers of code-generation for these devices, it doesn't seem feasible.

Is there any way to do this with cyprjmgr? It doesn't appear to have flags for making this level of change.

My other alternative is to script the process with python, modifying the source file from the script, making subprocess calls to the cyprjmgr utility, then renaming the resulting output file. This process is a little clunky and requires iterative testing to get right.

Does anyone have a reasonable alternative to accomplished what I've just described?