Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Search
  • Get Qt Extensions
  • Unsolved
Collapse
Brand Logo
  1. Home
  2. Qt Development
  3. General and Desktop
  4. QSerialPort parsing binary packets at a fast speed
Forum Updated to NodeBB v4.3 + New Features

QSerialPort parsing binary packets at a fast speed

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Unsolved General and Desktop
16 Posts 8 Posters 1.6k Views 2 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • L Offline
    L Offline
    lukutis222
    wrote on last edited by lukutis222
    #7

    I have simplified my serialworker greatly:

    #include "serialworker.h"
    #include <qDebug>
    #include <QDateTime>
    
    
    
    SerialWorker::SerialWorker(SettingsWindow *settings_ptr, QObject *parent)
        : QObject{parent}
    {
        settings_local = settings_ptr;
    
    }
    
    SerialWorker::~SerialWorker() {
        if (serial->isOpen()) {
            serial->close();
        }
        delete serial;
    }
    
    
    
    
    void SerialWorker::initialize() {
        qDebug("initialize method \n");
    
        serial = new QSerialPort(this);
        connect(serial, &QSerialPort::readyRead, this, &SerialWorker::processData);
    }
    
    
    
    
    void SerialWorker::processData() {
        static QByteArray buffer; // Persistent buffer for incomplete packets
        buffer.append(serial->readAll()); // Append the new data
    
        while (buffer.size() >= 13)// Minimum size of a packet
        {
            if (static_cast<uint8_t>(buffer[0]) == 0xAA && static_cast<uint8_t>(buffer[1]) == 0x55)
            {
                if (static_cast<uint8_t>(buffer[2]) == 0x09) { // Validate payload length
                    if (buffer.size() < 13)
                        return;           // Wait for more data
    
                    char channel = buffer[3];
                    if (channel == static_cast<char>(0x41))
                    {
                        float voltage, current;
                        memcpy(&voltage, buffer.mid(4, 4).data(), 4);
                        memcpy(&current, buffer.mid(8, 4).data(), 4);
    
                        uint8_t calculatedChecksum = 0;
                        for (int i = 2; i < 12; ++i)
                        {
                            calculatedChecksum ^= static_cast<uint8_t>(buffer[i]);
                        }
    
                        if (calculatedChecksum == static_cast<uint8_t>(buffer[12]))
                        {
                            // Emit the processed data to the main thread
                            emit dataProcessed(channel, voltage, current);
                            buffer.remove(0, 13); // Remove processed packet
                            continue;
                        } else
                        {
                            qDebug() << "Invalid checksum. Skipping packet.";
                            buffer.remove(0, 13); // Remove invalid packet
                        }
                    }
                    else
                    {
                        qDebug() << "Unknown channel. Skipping packet.";
                        buffer.remove(0, 13); // Remove unknown packet
                    }
                }
                else
                {
                    qDebug() << "Invalid payload length. Skipping packet.";
                    buffer.remove(0, 13); // Remove invalid packet
                }
            }
            else
            {
                qDebug() << "Invalid header. Searching for next valid header.";
                int headerIndex = buffer.indexOf(QByteArray::fromHex("AA55"), 1);
                if (headerIndex == -1)
                {
                    buffer.clear(); // No valid header found, clear the buffer
                }
                else
                {
                    buffer.remove(0, headerIndex); // Move to the next valid header
                }
            }
        }
    }
    
    
    
    
    void SerialWorker::write_data(QByteArray data){
        int64_t bytes_written = serial->write(data);
    }
    
    
    
    bool SerialWorker::Serial_connect(){
    
        if(serial->open(QIODevice::ReadWrite)){
            qDebug("Connection is succesfull \n");
            return 1;
        }
        else
        {
            //error
            qDebug() << serial->errorString();
        }
        return 0;
    
    }
    bool SerialWorker::Serial_disconnect(){
        if(serial->isOpen()){
            serial->close();
            return 1;
        }
        else{
            return 0;
        }
    }
    
    bool SerialWorker::Check_if_open(){
        if(serial->isOpen()){
            return 1;
        }
        else{
            return 0;
        }
    
    }
    
    QString SerialWorker::Get_Connect_Port(){
        if(Check_if_open() == 1){
            return serial->portName();
        }
        return "null";
    }
    
    
    

    I have configured my power analyzer device to send some test packets. This is pseudo code of my power analyzer:

            	   static int counter = 1;
            	   if (counter <= 10000) {
            	       struct DataPacket packet;
            	       uint8_t channel = 0x41; // ASCII 'A'
    
            	       // Replace voltage and current data with counter value
            	       float dummyVoltage = 0.0f; // Placeholder for voltage (can be set to 0)
            	       float dummyCurrent = (float)(counter); // Use the counter as the 'current' data
    
            	       // Encode the packet with counter value as the 'current'
            	       encodeDataPacket(channel, dummyVoltage, dummyCurrent, &packet);
    
            	       // Transmit the packet
            	       HAL_UART_Transmit(&huart4, (uint8_t *)&packet, sizeof(packet), 0xFF);
    
            	       counter++;
            	   }
    

    It simply sends the packets that contains counter value. For example:

    (The counter values are converted to single point floating precision)

    0xAA 0x55 0x09 0x41 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x80 0x3F CRC
    0xAA 0x55 0x09 0x41 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x40 CRC
    0xAA 0x55 0x09 0x41 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x40 0x40 CRC

    and etc...

    When the processData detects a valid 13 byte packet, it calls:

    emit dataProcessed(channel, voltage, current);
    

    Then in my handleProcessedData I do the following:

    
    void MainWindow::handleProcessedData(char channel, float voltage, float current) {
        if (channel == 'A') {
            static int counter = 1;  // Static counter to persist across function calls
                    // Measure elapsed time in nanoseconds and calculate relative timestamp
            qint64 elapsedNanoseconds = timer_usec.nsecsElapsed();
            double relative_timestamp = elapsedNanoseconds / 1e9;
                    // Format the log string to include counter, timestamp, voltage, and current
            QString logString = QString("%1, %2, %3 V, %4 mA")
                                    .arg(counter)                                  // Counter value
                                    .arg(QString::number(relative_timestamp, 'f', 6))  // Relative timestamp
                                    .arg(QString::number(voltage, 'f', 2))        // Voltage
                                    .arg(QString::number(current, 'f', 2));       // Current
                    // Write the log string to the file
            logging_local->Write_to_file(logString);
            counter++;  // Increment the counter
        }
    }
    

    The purpose of this test is to simply send 10000 packets from my device and confirm if I am able to receive all 10000 packets on my QT application. After running the test, I can open the log file or plot the points to see what happened.

    The results:

    The QT application managed to receive all 10000 packets and it took roughly 10 seconds to do so which is correct. However, the time intervals between each packet are very inconsistent. Sometimes, it parse multiple packets within a couple of uS (micro seconds) and then some other times it parses some packets within 10's of ms (miliseconds), but the end result is that it received all 10000 packets within the expected time interval (10 seconds).

    However, it is still not clear to me why the timestamps are so inconsistent. See a snippet of a log below.

    1685, 2.452991, 0.00 V, 1685.00 mA
    1686, 2.453939, 0.00 V, 1686.00 mA
    1687, 2.454988, 0.00 V, 1687.00 mA
    1688, 2.455882, 0.00 V, 1688.00 mA
    1689, 2.456991, 0.00 V, 1689.00 mA
    1690, 2.457946, 0.00 V, 1690.00 mA
    1691, 2.469666, 0.00 V, 1691.00 mA
    1692, 2.469721, 0.00 V, 1692.00 mA
    1693, 2.469732, 0.00 V, 1693.00 mA
    1694, 2.469741, 0.00 V, 1694.00 mA
    1695, 2.469749, 0.00 V, 1695.00 mA
    1696, 2.469756, 0.00 V, 1696.00 mA
    1697, 2.469763, 0.00 V, 1697.00 mA
    1698, 2.469770, 0.00 V, 1698.00 mA
    1699, 2.469777, 0.00 V, 1699.00 mA
    1700, 2.469784, 0.00 V, 1700.00 mA
    1701, 2.472088, 0.00 V, 1701.00 mA
    1702, 2.472121, 0.00 V, 1702.00 mA
    1703, 2.472133, 0.00 V, 1703.00 mA
    1704, 2.472141, 0.00 V, 1704.00 mA
    1705, 2.507428, 0.00 V, 1705.00 mA
    1706, 2.507476, 0.00 V, 1706.00 mA
    1707, 2.507486, 0.00 V, 1707.00 mA
    1708, 2.507494, 0.00 V, 1708.00 mA
    1709, 2.507502, 0.00 V, 1709.00 mA
    1710, 2.507509, 0.00 V, 1710.00 mA
    1711, 2.507516, 0.00 V, 1711.00 mA
    1712, 2.507523, 0.00 V, 1712.00 mA
    1713, 2.507530, 0.00 V, 1713.00 mA
    1714, 2.507537, 0.00 V, 1714.00 mA
    1715, 2.507543, 0.00 V, 1715.00 mA
    1716, 2.507551, 0.00 V, 1716.00 mA
    1717, 2.507559, 0.00 V, 1717.00 mA
    1718, 2.507566, 0.00 V, 1718.00 mA
    1719, 2.507573, 0.00 V, 1719.00 mA
    1720, 2.507580, 0.00 V, 1720.00 mA
    1721, 2.507587, 0.00 V, 1721.00 mA
    1722, 2.507594, 0.00 V, 1722.00 mA
    1723, 2.507600, 0.00 V, 1723.00 mA
    1724, 2.507607, 0.00 V, 1724.00 mA
    1725, 2.507614, 0.00 V, 1725.00 mA
    1726, 2.507621, 0.00 V, 1726.00 mA
    1727, 2.507627, 0.00 V, 1727.00 mA
    1728, 2.507634, 0.00 V, 1728.00 mA
    1729, 2.507641, 0.00 V, 1729.00 mA
    1730, 2.507648, 0.00 V, 1730.00 mA
    1731, 2.507654, 0.00 V, 1731.00 mA
    1732, 2.507661, 0.00 V, 1732.00 mA
    1733, 2.507668, 0.00 V, 1733.00 mA
    1734, 2.507674, 0.00 V, 1734.00 mA
    1735, 2.507681, 0.00 V, 1735.00 mA
    1736, 2.507690, 0.00 V, 1736.00 mA
    1737, 2.507696, 0.00 V, 1737.00 mA
    1738, 2.507703, 0.00 V, 1738.00 mA
    1739, 2.507710, 0.00 V, 1739.00 mA
    1740, 2.508267, 0.00 V, 1740.00 mA
    1741, 2.509030, 0.00 V, 1741.00 mA
    1742, 2.509948, 0.00 V, 1742.00 mA
    1743, 2.510947, 0.00 V, 1743.00 mA
    1744, 2.512067, 0.00 V, 1744.00 mA
    1745, 2.512973, 0.00 V, 1745.00 mA
    1746, 2.513943, 0.00 V, 1746.00 mA
    1747, 2.516227, 0.00 V, 1747.00 mA
    1748, 2.516279, 0.00 V, 1748.00 mA
    1749, 2.517017, 0.00 V, 1749.00 mA
    1750, 2.517944, 0.00 V, 1750.00 mA
    1751, 2.518952, 0.00 V, 1751.00 mA
    1752, 2.520017, 0.00 V, 1752.00 mA
    1753, 2.520939, 0.00 V, 1753.00 mA
    1754, 2.522184, 0.00 V, 1754.00 mA
    1755, 2.522946, 0.00 V, 1755.00 mA
    1756, 2.523933, 0.00 V, 1756.00 mA
    1757, 2.524976, 0.00 V, 1757.00 mA
    1758, 2.525922, 0.00 V, 1758.00 mA
    1759, 2.526946, 0.00 V, 1759.00 mA
    1760, 2.527952, 0.00 V, 1760.00 mA
    1761, 2.529366, 0.00 V, 1761.00 mA
    1762, 2.532158, 0.00 V, 1762.00 mA
    1763, 2.533333, 0.00 V, 1763.00 mA
    1764, 2.533362, 0.00 V, 1764.00 mA
    1765, 2.533533, 0.00 V, 1765.00 mA
    1766, 2.533974, 0.00 V, 1766.00 mA
    1767, 2.534923, 0.00 V, 1767.00 mA
    1768, 2.535962, 0.00 V, 1768.00 mA
    1769, 2.536948, 0.00 V, 1769.00 mA
    1770, 2.537951, 0.00 V, 1770.00 mA
    1771, 2.539811, 0.00 V, 1771.00 mA
    1772, 2.540188, 0.00 V, 1772.00 mA
    1773, 2.543413, 0.00 V, 1773.00 mA
    1774, 2.545811, 0.00 V, 1774.00 mA
    1775, 2.545833, 0.00 V, 1775.00 mA
    1776, 2.546210, 0.00 V, 1776.00 mA
    1777, 2.546637, 0.00 V, 1777.00 mA
    1778, 2.546659, 0.00 V, 1778.00 mA
    1779, 2.547927, 0.00 V, 1779.00 mA
    1780, 2.549926, 0.00 V, 1780.00 mA
    1781, 2.550731, 0.00 V, 1781.00 mA
    1782, 2.550756, 0.00 V, 1782.00 mA
    1783, 2.551652, 0.00 V, 1783.00 mA
    1784, 2.552000, 0.00 V, 1784.00 mA
    
    

    For example
    Between packet number 1685 and packet 1686, timestamp difference is:
    2.453939 - 2.452991 = 0.000948 (0.9ms) which is almost correct.

    However, if you look at some other packets such as 1704 and 1705:
    2.507428 - 2.472141 = 0.035287 (35ms)

    I have probed the RX/TX lines with logic analyzer to confirm whether irregularities are coming from the power analyzer side or not and I can confidently confirm that the analyzer works perfectly fine - it transmits packets at precisely every 1ms interavals.

    If you want to check the whole log, you can download it via wetransfer link below:
    https://we.tl/t-RCxUkiMwa6

    At this point, I see only 2 possibilities:

    1. logging_local->Write_to_file(logString); is causing my system to lag for a short amount of time. But that is not likely because logging happens in main thread whereas parsing the data happens in serialworker thread.

    2. My processData method does not work reliably. Even though it succesfully parsed all 10000 packets as were expected, it did not manage to capture them "on time"

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • aha_1980A Offline
      aha_1980A Offline
      aha_1980
      Lifetime Qt Champion
      wrote on last edited by
      #8

      @lukutis222 How is the serial line connected to the computer? Via a hardware RS-232 or by an USB-Serial adapter?

      Also, which operating system are you using?

      Qt has to stay free or it will die.

      L 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • aha_1980A aha_1980

        @lukutis222 How is the serial line connected to the computer? Via a hardware RS-232 or by an USB-Serial adapter?

        Also, which operating system are you using?

        L Offline
        L Offline
        lukutis222
        wrote on last edited by lukutis222
        #9

        @aha_1980
        It is connected via USB->Serial connverter. But I am probing the RX TX lines and they seem perfectly fine on the Salae logic analyzer.

        I am on Windows 11

        JonBJ 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • L lukutis222

          @aha_1980
          It is connected via USB->Serial connverter. But I am probing the RX TX lines and they seem perfectly fine on the Salae logic analyzer.

          I am on Windows 11

          JonBJ Offline
          JonBJ Offline
          JonB
          wrote on last edited by
          #10

          @lukutis222
          I am not an expert in hardware, please take this with a pinch of salt. But e.g. as per the https://forum.qt.io/topic/159883/timerevent-response-overtime we mentioned earlier, Windows is not a RTOS. How do you know when the OS might be off doing stuff? How do you know when your thread --- worker or main/UI --- gets scheduled? When the OS hands data to your program? Maybe 35ms is too much, I wouldn't know. But I don't think you can guarantee things to be consistently 1ms apart in real time. My guess is that if you rewrote the code from Qt to native Windows (using the same calls) you would see the same lumpiness? In which case it wouldn't be a Qt issue. But you may know more than I.

          Pl45m4P 1 Reply Last reply
          1
          • Christian EhrlicherC Offline
            Christian EhrlicherC Offline
            Christian Ehrlicher
            Lifetime Qt Champion
            wrote on last edited by
            #11

            As @JonB already wrote - if you want to process real time (for whatever reason) you have to use a proper os. There are so much buffers and schedulers involved that your numbers are in the exepcted range.

            Qt Online Installer direct download: https://download.qt.io/official_releases/online_installers/
            Visit the Qt Academy at https://academy.qt.io/catalog

            1 Reply Last reply
            1
            • artwawA Offline
              artwawA Offline
              artwaw
              wrote on last edited by
              #12

              I think I recall previous conversations in the forum, where it was hard to go below 15/16ms boundary with reliable results. You might want to dig a bit and find those posts.

              For more information please re-read.

              Kind Regards,
              Artur

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • JonBJ JonB

                @lukutis222
                I am not an expert in hardware, please take this with a pinch of salt. But e.g. as per the https://forum.qt.io/topic/159883/timerevent-response-overtime we mentioned earlier, Windows is not a RTOS. How do you know when the OS might be off doing stuff? How do you know when your thread --- worker or main/UI --- gets scheduled? When the OS hands data to your program? Maybe 35ms is too much, I wouldn't know. But I don't think you can guarantee things to be consistently 1ms apart in real time. My guess is that if you rewrote the code from Qt to native Windows (using the same calls) you would see the same lumpiness? In which case it wouldn't be a Qt issue. But you may know more than I.

                Pl45m4P Offline
                Pl45m4P Offline
                Pl45m4
                wrote on last edited by
                #13

                @JonB said in QSerialPort parsing binary packets at a fast speed:

                But e.g. as per the https://forum.qt.io/topic/159883/timerevent-response-overtime we mentioned earlier

                @artwaw Jon already "found" and referred to it :)


                If debugging is the process of removing software bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in.

                ~E. W. Dijkstra

                1 Reply Last reply
                1
                • artwawA Offline
                  artwawA Offline
                  artwaw
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #14

                  Ah, great! Missed that entry...

                  Additionally, speaking of Windows configuration - default OS timer setting:

                  The default platform timer resolution is 15.6ms (15625000ns) and should be used whenever the system is idle. If the timer resolution is increased, processor power management technologies may not be effective. The timer resolution may be
                  increased due to multimedia playback or graphical animations.
                  Current Timer Resolution (100ns units) 156250
                  

                  This probably can be tweaked but I'd rather not to.

                  For more information please re-read.

                  Kind Regards,
                  Artur

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  • K Offline
                    K Offline
                    kuzulis
                    Qt Champions 2020
                    wrote on last edited by kuzulis
                    #15

                    No, it is impossible to rely on the packets reception time. You can't take a timestamps from that. As, I understand, do you need a timestamps, for the plotting voltage/current values, e.g. on the plot?

                    If, so, then you have a two options:

                    1. Use a proxy/route MCU which will receive a packages and set a timestamp for every received package, and then route a modified packages to your PC (e.g. with some other your protocol).

                    2. Or, as you know that a package received every one millisecond, then just increase a timestamp +1. So, your X-axis will contains some relative time, not absolute. You then can assign that time to everything.))

                    p. 2 is a more simple and preferable, IMHO. ))

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    3
                    • L Offline
                      L Offline
                      lukutis222
                      wrote on last edited by lukutis222
                      #16

                      Thanks again for all the responses.

                      @JonB and @Christian-Ehrlicher
                      So from what I understood, it is completely not doable to achieve what I want by using my current method.
                      Regards to using a proper OS, could you please point me in the right direction for some reading material about how to implement an OS within my QT application. I am familliar with FreeRTOS but that is for the embedded devices and not for QT desktop applications. Does the same principles apply here as well? Can I use FreeRTOS for this or this is completely different? When I look up on "google" about QT and OS, not much comes up apart from:
                      https://doc.qt.io/archives/QtForMCUs-2.2/qtul-using-with-freertos.html

                      In response to @kuzulis statement. Yes I need the timestamps to plot the current/voltage values. The workarround that you have mentioned (using relative time instead of an actual time when the packet was received) might work. I might have to use this method if I dont manage to find any other way to fix this "properly".

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0

                      • Login

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • Users
                      • Groups
                      • Search
                      • Get Qt Extensions
                      • Unsolved