Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Music Structure and Program Structure

I am a programmer by nature. I learned on my father's knee when I was single-digits old. I passed him in skill when I was a teenager. But, I am not only a programmer. "Specialization is for insects."

One of the other things that I am is an amateur musician. I may not have ever been a good, or even an average, tuba player, but I had fun doing it. I had fun marching, and I had fun watching football and basketball games. I realized early on that I was there not really so much as a musician, but as the carrier of a big metal flag. I was there for visual impact as much as anything. I even achieved a certain amount of fame as the "spinning tuba guy" in the early 2000's. One of my proudest moments was when I was featured in the opening montage of SportsCenter for one whole second.

As I said, I was never very good, but to be even a below-average tuba player, you must acquire certain skills. You have to know how to read music, and I did. I could convert note positions into fingerings and play approximately the right note. I could count or clap out rhythms, and with some practice, I could play the music well enough to fit in with the rest of the band.

One of the things I noticed being both a programmer and musician is that there are some similarities between program flow and music flow. In both cases, the most common flow is from one line or measure to the next, just sequential. Programming has loops, music has repeat signs. Programming has if/then, music has first and second endings. Music is somewhat limited, in that it is deterministic. It doesn't have to deal with input. Therefore, in music, some things have to go together, like multiple endings and repeat signs. Otherwise, the second ending would never be played, and would effectively get optimized out.

I have often wondered if this mapping could be made more complete. There are certain concepts we use in programming that tend not to get used in music, but maybe could, like subroutines. That got me wondering if there were concepts in music that could be mapped to programming, but aren't, and I finally came up with one today: the coda.

In music, you will see markings such as D.S. al Coda, indicating that the flow jumps from here, back (never forward) to a special marking, and then continues from there to another mark coda. This mark is ignored the first time through, but the second time, indicates a jump forward (never back) to the marked coda section.

It first occurred to me today that this is similar to exception handling. When a handled exception is thrown, the flow jumps to the handler. In a sense, this is like taking the coda branch in music.

You could use this in normal flow, throwing an exception when you want to make an early exit from a loop or function. Most functions and loops should have one entry point (enforced by the language, except for Fortran), and one exit point. However, sometimes it is convenient to do an early return from a routine, an early break from a loop body, or an early re-loop in a loop body. Most languages I use support these things with the return, break, and continue statements, respectively. However, there is a good reason for the 'only one exit' rule. Often the routine needs to do some cleanup on exit, closing files, calculating final results from accumulated variables, etc. If you do an early exit, you have to make sure that the cleanup is done appropriately each time you have an exit. If you want to change the cleanup, you have to do that in multiple places. The alternative is that rather than having multiple cleanup-and-exit blocks, you have something like goto end, and then at the end label, you do the cleanup.

However, gotos are to be avoided, for good reason. While the code will work just fine, source code is for communication with humans, not machines. If it were otherwise, we would write code once, keep the binary code, and delete the source. In this case, the humans we are communicating with are most likely our future selves.

Since source code is for humans, semantics matter more than they do if it were just for machines. Machine language doesn't normally have many advanced control structures, just jumps. The code is effectively strewn with goto statements, and the more optimized the code is, the worse this tends to get. Even disassembled code from a modern compiler is hard to reconcile with its source code. Optimizations make everything dramatically out-of-order.

Source code on the other hand, has structured statements rather than a spaghetti nest of goto statements, because they mean something to us. To a machine, a for loop means set up an induction variable, do something to it at the end of each loop, check the loop condition, and go back and do it all again as necessary. To a human, it means run the loop a predetermined number of times. This is why we have the rule to not monkey with the induction variable, as it disrupts the loop semantics. The human reading it will think that this block will run a predetermined number of times, but monkeying with the induction variable disrupts this expectation. In a sense, this is why break and continue are frowned upon, because they also disrupt the expectation.

Random goto statements are just that, random. They have no semantics. They can be used to do anything, so they mean nothing. All structured programming constructs can be done with goto (in fact they have to be in machine language) but not all goto constructs can be represented by structured programming. Sure, there is a proof that you can do it, but that's just because structured programming and goto statements are both Turing complete. I was once dealing with a program, SDP4, which was originally written in Fortran with no structured programming constructs, but pure goto spaghetti. The code arrived to me translated into (Turbo) Pascal, and I translated it further into Java. The previous programmer did a pretty good job of translating most of the gotos into structured constructs, but there is one part where he left in the gotos because the original code was so tangled he couldn't figure it out. He had the luxury of leaving in the goto statements in that case, because (Turbo) Pascal supports it, but I in Java did not. I ended up using a case statement inside a while loop and depending on fall-through. It was technically a structured construct, but just emulated the original goto nest. Vallado points to a solution that involved jettisoning that entire block of code and re-writing it from the original math.

So, while you can write a goto end, it doesn't carry the appropriate semantics. What I want is a statement that means to coda and coda. This carries the semantic that we will shortly be exiting the routine, but that there is a certain amount of cleanup to do. It would be added to the arsenal along with the early return, break, and contiune. One way to implement it in Java is to put the coda in a finally block of a try/catch/finally statement. Then when you want an early cleanup, you throw an exception. However, this violates the semantics of an exception, which is supposed to only be used for an error condition. I once wrote a program which used exceptions in this sense, asked the guys on TheDailyWTF forum what is a better way to do it, and basically got laughed off the forum.

Therefore, I think that in order to capture this semantic, a new statement is needed. Coda is a fine word for it for me, since I am a musician, but maybe there is a better term. Until this construct is added to our arsenal of structured constructs, we are stuck with goto coda, which is better than nothing, because it does capture the appropriate semantics.

Wednesday, April 2, 2014


Once again this is hooked up as indicated in the MIC5319 datasheet. I finally am using the switch right, no more useless machine (and useless transistor) for me. As it turns out, that transistor was effectively built-in to the regulator, that's what the EN input is there for. This circuit supplies a nice 3.3V output on VCC to everything else. Previous versions had a current sensor, but this one doesn't, as I haven't gotten one of those to work yet.

It isn't visible in this image, but the bottom rail is GND.

Charging Circuit

This one is a pretty straightforward hookup of the MCP73831 charging circuit, with one addition: D302 is there so that the charging circuit does not have to treat the whole device as a battery to be charged. If USB is connected, VIN will get the full 5V (minus the voltage drop of a Schottky diode). If not, the battery is used (again minus the voltage drop). Finally, both diodes need to be there so that the battery doesn't feed back to the charger input and try to charge itself. The programming resistor tells the resistor to charge the battery at a maximum of 100mA. This is 1C for a 100mAh battery, the smallest one I have and the one that flies with the Rocketometer.

The status light uses a resistor from the 1.5k pack in the USB connection.

Other versions of this circuit have had a voltage divider between VLIPO and GND so as to allow the MCU to measure the battery voltage. I haven't used it in a while, and it does draw some current, so it is gone from this circuit.

Doing USB right

AN11392 - Guidelines for full-speed USB on NXP's LPC microcontrollers (19 Feb 2014). This finally answers all my questions about what all the USB parts are. Based on it, let's review the Loginator USB/charge/power supply section.

We are now using a Micro USB connector with through-hole posts for better mechanical security and easier alignment during soldering. Micro USB takes up less board space and is compatible with the cords used for Android phone charging.

The first thing the app note says is that there must be a 33 ohm resistor on each of D+ and D-. This, plus the internal resistance of the LPC itself, add up to the 90 ohm total impedance required. It implies that there is 12 ohms on each of the pins inside the LPC. This is what I have been carrying all along from the Logomatic design.

Secondly, USB_Softconnect is required if the device is self-powered, or if it takes longer than a certain amount of time to boot up. Since my device can be self-powered and might never boot up and connect, I intend to use this as intended. However, I still like a PMOS rather than PNP transistor. The 1.5k resistor required for softconnect to work is also well-sized for the LED, so I use an array.

The signal lines have capacitors to ground, for exactly the purpose I deduced - shorting high-frequency signals to ground. The app note says that they are not strictly necessary but that it has been reported to improve certain noise issues. I have always built circuits with these included, so I shall continue. These are one of the rare cases where it makes sense to use a capacitor array.

Next, we have R011 and R015, which I completely whiffed on. In my defense, I am not the only one. My design came from the Logomatic, which came from the microbuilder.eu LPC2148 Reference Design which appears to be a mistranscription of the Keil MCB2140 schematic. Even then, the Keil board does not seem to be what was intended.

The idea is that P0.23, USB_ON, is 5V tolerant if and only if the rest of the circuit is powered. So, if it is not possible for the MCU to be off while the USB voltage is present, then you can just plug VBUS into P0.23. However, if the MCU is not powered, the voltage on that pin is supposed to be limited to less than 3.6V. The app note recommends a voltage divider, with 24k on the high side and 39k on the low side, resulting in about 3.09V on the input.

The way both the microbuilder circuit and Logomatic circuits are arranged, that isn't a voltage divider at all, and the pin eats a full 5V. Since the MCU can be turned off (the power switch disables the 3.3V VCC line), this is technically out of spec.

R011 should be connected to the right pin of R015B, and should be closer to 20k. This divider will draw three times as much current as the recommended value, but that is still less than 1mA.

There is supposed to be between 1 and 10 uF between VBUS and ground, visible through regulators and other parts. The real spec is that the inrush current should be limited, but I don't intend to ever submit my device to USB compliance testing, so as long as it works for me, it's fine. There is 4.7uF on the input to the voltage regulator, so I do not inculde any intentional capacitance in this section.