Because CAN was introduced inside the ’80s, it has observed a tremendous evolution with regards to specifications and needs. Its extended capabilities have led to its wide adoption across applications, from automotive to the industrial machine and factory automation. With this development, the complexity of implementation has also improved on two levels:
- CAN controller design has gone from a fundamental controller to a complete CAN controller and, in some instances, an extended full CAN controller.
- CAN application stacks vary, from an automotive communication stack to CANOpen, and DeviceNet?
Given which can is only a single element within the automotive system, developers have to be capable of implementing it with a handful challenges as possible so they could focus on system-level functionality instead of struggle with peripheral configuration.
This article will explore the CAN interface and talk about diverse strategies of implementing, configuring, and tuning interfaces to facilitate the simplified design. The Controller Region Network (CAN) was initially introduced by Robert Bosch to address the increasing complexity of automobile functions and networks. Within the early days of embedded systems development, modules contained a single MCU, performing a single or various basic functions such as reading a sensor level through an ADC and controlling a DC motor. As these functions became a lot more complicated, designers adopted distributed module architecture, implementing functions in 2 or extra MCUs on the very same PCB, and using I2C or SPI protocols to communicate among these functions. Applying the identical instance above, a complex module would have the most important MCU performing all system functions, diagnostics, and failsafe, even though an additional MCU handles a BLDC motor control function. This was produced attainable with all the wide availability of basic objective MCUs at a low cost.
In today’s vehicles, as functions grow to be … Continue reading >>>