2012-09-03

Course DVA316
-

Embedded Systems I
-
Damir Isovic, Jukka Mäki-Turja,
Saad Mubeen and Rafia Inam

Today’s lecture

Practical issues
•  Teachers
•  Course model
•  Registration
•  Literature
•  Home page
•  Examination
•  Evaluation

Course content overview

•  Lectures
•  Labs

First lecture
•  L1 – Introduction to Embedded Systems

1
 2012-09-03

Teachers

Damir Isovic
•  PhD, Associate Professor in Computer Science
•  E-mail: damir.isovic@mdh.se
•  Phone: +46 (0)21 10 31 73
•  Room: U1-169

Jukka Mäki-Turja
•  PhD, Assistant Professor in Computer Science
•  E-mail: jukka.maki-turja@mdh.se
•  Phone: +46 (0)21 10 14 66
•  Room: U1-138

Lab assistants

Saad Mubeen
•  PhD student
•  E-mail: saad.mubeen@mdh.se
•  Phone: +46 (0)21 10 31 91
•  Room: U1-87

Rafia Inam
•  PhD student
•  E-mail: rafia.inam@mdh.se
•  Phone: +46 (0)21 10 31 91
•  Room: U1-187

2
 2012-09-03

Course info
Basic info
•  Title: Embedded Systems I
•  Code: DVA316
•  Level: First cycle (level 300)
•  Subject: Computer Science / Engineering
•  Credits: 7.5 hp (ECTS)
•  Duration: period 1

Prerequisites
•  90 ECTS in computer science or electronics
•  Solid programming skills, basic operating systems knowledge

Examination
•  Laboratory work, 3.5 credits
•  Final exam, 4 credits

Course homepage
URL: http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/DVA316/

Contains
•  News
•  Lectures (PPT presentations, reading material,..)
•  Lab assignments (instructions, code, manuals,..)
•  Literature
•  Help (FAQ, Errata,..)
•  Contact information (teachers & lab assistants)
•  Course schedule
•  Course syllabus

Password protected!
•  User name: student
•  Password: dva316ht12

3
 2012-09-03

Course homepage

Course contents

Lectures
•  10 lectures (2 hours each) + 1 exercise (2h)
•  Normally 2 lectures per week
−  Mondays 13.15 – 15.00
−  Wednesdays 10.15 – 12.00
•  Lecture slides available on the course web page at least one day
before the lecture

Labs
•  6 lab assignments to be solved
•  7 scheduled labs with assistants on Wednesdays (4h each)
•  Note! No lab in week 35.

Please prepare properly for the lab by reading the lab instructions
and manuals before the scheduled lab occasion !

4
 2012-09-03

Lectures overview
L1: Introduction
- Course administrative stuff
- Introduction to ES
L2: ES hardware
- Typical ES hardware (processors,
memories, busses, peripherals, I/O,..)
L6-L9: RTOS
- Lab hardware
L3: Programming ES
- Blinking LED (compiling, linking,
downloading, running)
- low-level programming in C
L4: Debugging and testing
- JTAG debugger, stepping,
brake points,
- Logic analyzers, oscilloscopes,…
L5: Operating systems
- Threads, processes,
- kernel, system calls, timers,
- polling, interrupts, device drivers, …
- Why Real-Time OS?
- RTOS components, API
- task, states, transitions,..
- timers/counters
- communication/synchronization
- scheduling, shared resources,
- time-triggered and event-triggered
L10: Performance measurements
- Execution time, stack usage, …

Labs
Equipment
•  EVK1100 development board (AVR32)
•  JTAG debugger
•  AVR32 Studio (on Linux)
•  FreeRTOS

Lab groups
•  Max 2 students
•  One lab kit per group
•  During the first scheduled lab occasion you will get a lab
kit and sign a contract

Demonstration
•  Mandatory lab attendance at at least 5 lab occasions
•  Both students in the group will be questioned by lab
assistants during the labs

5
 2012-09-03

Labs

Mandatory lab assignment (C programming)

•  Six labs
•  Lab 1 – Introduction to AVR32
•  Lab 2 – AVR32 Serial I/O communication
•  Lab 3 – AVR32 Software Framework
•  Lab 4 – Timer/Counter and Interrupts
•  Lab 5 – FreeRTOS on AVR32
•  Lab 6 – FreeRTOS semaphores and queues
•  All mandatory assignments must be passed to pass the course!
•  If passed on time, give extra credits at the exam!

Optional lab assignments

•  Up to you if you want to do them or not
•  Give extra extra credits at the exam :)
•  Must be demonstrated individually!

Labs

Next lecture
•  Sign up for a 2-persons group

Homework for the next lecture

•  Try to find a “lab buddy”, i.e., one other student to work with

6
 2012-09-03

Grading
In order to pass the course, you must pass:
•  Final written exam, Grades: 3,4 or 5 (Bologna D,C,B,A)
•  All mandatory lab assignments, Grade: pass/fail

Final written exam

•  Grade 3: > 55 % (ECTS grade D,C)
•  Grade 4: > 77 % (B)
•  Grade 5: > 91 % (A)

Exam grading policy

•  Written exam part: max 90% of the total score
•  All mandatory labs completed before exam: 10% of the total score
•  All optional labs completed before the exam: 15% of the total score

Doing the labs on time will help you to pass the exam (possible to get
25% extra credits, so you need to score only 30% at the exam)

Grading

Optional lab assignments credits distribution

•  Lab 1: 3 assignments à 3x1 = 3 credits à 1.5% of the exam

•  Lab 2: no extra assignments

•  Lab 3: 6 assignments à 6x2.5 = 15 credits à 7.5%

•  Lab 4: 2 assignments à 2x2 =4 credits à 2%

•  Lab 5: 1 assignments à 1x4 = 4 credits à 2%

•  Lab 6: 2 assignments à 2x2 = 4 credits à 2%

Total: 30 credits (15% of the exam)

7
 2012-09-03

Course literature
There is no single book that covers all lectures, so the main course
literature will be:
•  Our PPT slides
•  chapters from our own book “Real-Time Systems” (free download)
•  Other attached documents for each lecture (e.g., articles)

Recommended other books

Programming Embedded
Systems
Michael Barr, Anthony Massa All three books are
available as E-books
through the course
Real-time concepts for homepage (see
embedded systems Literature)!
Qing Li , Caroline Yao

Using the FreeRTOS Real Time Kernel - a

Practical Guide (Standard Edition)
Richard Barry

Registration
If your name is not on the list, you are not registered yet!

How to register?
•  ALT 1: Register during this lecture
•  ALT 2: Visit IDT expedition
•  ALT 3: Student portal:
https://portal.mdh.se/student/

International students
•  The course must be approved on your
Learning Agreement or Study Plan in order
to get a course registration

8
 2012-09-03

Course  Evalua,on  DVA316  -­‐  2011  

Your  own  work  effort  

I  es.mate  my  average  working  hours  per  week  at    

1. -9 1 (5%)
2. 10-19 6 (27%)
3. 20-29 7 (32%)
4. 30-39 7 (32%)
5. 40-49 1 (5%)
6. 50-59 0 (0%)
7. 60- 0 (0%)

•  “This  course  is  very  prac0cal  and  to  do  a  lot  of  labs  work."  
•  "Hardly  any  0me  spent  outside  lectures  and  labs"  
•  "This  course  took  up  the  majority  of  my  study  0me.  Most  of  the  0me  was  spent  on  labs  which,  due  
to  unforeseen  problems  and  unmen0oned  details,  required  a  lot  of  work."  
•  "The  labs  were  very  0me  consuming"  

9
 2012-09-03

 Intended  learning  outcomes  

1. 1 = I disagree entirely 0 (0%)

2. 2 0 (0%)

3. 3 1 (5%)

4. 4 12 (55%)

5. 5 = I agree entirely 9 (41%)

Average: 4,36

Course  Content  

The course syllabus gave a fair description of what the course was actually about.  

1. 1 = I disagree
0 (0%)
entirely

2. 2 0 (0%)

3. 3 1 (5%)

4. 4 11 (50%)

5. 5 = I agree entirely 10 (45%)

Average: 4,41

10
 2012-09-03

Teaching  methods  

The teaching methods in the course, that is their practical implementation and the
various teaching activities, worked well and gave me the means whereby I could achieve
the learning objectives.  

1. 1 = I disagree
0 (0%)
entirely

2. 2 0 (0%)

3. 3 3 (14%)

4. 4 10 (45%)

5. 5 = I agree entirely 9 (41%)

Average: 4,27

•  ”Lectures were really good, but lab assistants should have been spending more time on
these occations”

•  "Practical implementation was hard at times because AVR32studio had bugs.

Examina.on  

The examination forms of the course were chosen in such a way that I had an
opportunity, as a student, to demonstrate to what extent I had achieved the course’s
learning objectives.

1. 1 = I disagree
0 (0%)
entirely

2. 2 1 (5%)

3. 3 3 (14%)

4. 4 7 (32%)

5. 5 = I agree entirely 11 (50%)

Avg: 4,27

11
 2012-09-03

Literature  and  other  teaching  aids  

1. 1 = I disagree entirely 0 (0%)

2. 2 1 (5%)

3. 3 5 (24%)

4. 4 10 (48%)

5. 5 = I agree entirely 5 (24%)

Avg: 4,0

•  "I did not use any of the books, but only online material. The slides were generally very clear”

•  "Being able to get by on just lecture notes and slides (and internet) is great."

•  ”Iab technicians should be more helpful without giving the answer away. They had a tendency just to not
help for fear of completely explaining the answer to us. Otherwise, everything else gets a five."

Support  and  service  

The  supplementary  informa,on  was  sufficient.  

1. 1 = I disagree entirely 0 (0%)

2. 2 0 (0%)

3. 3 5 (23%)

4. 4 9 (41%)

5. 5 = I agree entirely 8 (36%)

Avg: 4,14

12
 2012-09-03

Support  and  service  

The  IT-­‐related  support  has  worked  well  

1. 1 = I disagree entirely 0 (0%)

2. 2 1 (5%)

3. 3 3 (15%)

4. 4 10 (50%)

5. 5 = I agree entirely 6 (30%)

Avg: 4,05

Support  and  service  

The  administra,on  of  examina,ons  and  other  service  at  the  School’s  Student  Recep,on  Desk  
has  worked  well.  

1. 1 = I disagree entirely 0 (0%)

2. 2 0 (0%)

3. 3 1 (5%)

4. 4 9 (45%)

5. 5 = I agree entirely 10 (50%)

Avg: 4,45

13
 2012-09-03

Support  and  service  

The  University  Library  has  been  an  important  resource  for  me  in  this  course.  

1. 1 = I disagree entirely 10 (48%)

2. 2 3 (14%)

3. 3 4 (19%)

4. 4 4 (19%)

5. 5 = I agree entirely 0 (0%)

Avg: 2,1

Equality  

Students  have  been  treated  with  respect  where  each  and  every  one  has  been  included  
regardless  of  age,  gender,  ethnicity,  religion  or  other  belief,  disabili,es,  sexual  orienta,on  or  
transgender  iden,ty/expression.  

1. 1 = I disagree entirely 0 (0%)

2. 2 0 (0%)

3. 3 0 (0%)

4. 4 2 (10%)

5. 5 = I agree entirely 19 (90%)

Avg: 4,9

14
 2012-09-03

Other  features  of  the  course  

Do  you  think  that  the  course  has  contained  features  which  show  collabora,on  with  the  
surrounding  community?  

1. yes 7 (32%)

2. no 5 (23%)

3. no opinion 10 (45%)

Other  features  of  the  course  

Do  you  think  that  the  course  has  contained  features  with  an  interna,onal  perspec,ve?  

1. yes 12 (55%)

2. no 3 (14%)

3. no opinion 7 (32%)

15
 2012-09-03

Other  features  of  the  course  

Do  you  think  that  the  course  has  contained  features  which  have  given  you  an  insight  into  old  
or  new  research  within  the  scope  of  the  course?  

1. yes 13 (59%)

2. no 3 (14%)

3. no opinion 6 (27%)

Further  opinions  

What  was  par.cularly  good  about  the  course?  

•  "labs"  
•  "the  various  experiments  are  interes0ng"  
•  "the  en0re  course  is  very  prac0cal  and  full  of  informa0on  about  the  basic  things."  
•  "Damir  and  Jukka.  Knowledge  and  actually  being  able  to  teach  is  to  other  is  quite  rare."  
•  "1.Excellent  lectures  on  RTOS  and  scheduling.  2.Very  helpful  teaching  stuff."  
•  "The  lab  assignments  force  students  to  get  familiar  with  the  material"  
•  "The  structure  of  the  lectures  and  the  whole  course  was  good."  
•  "In  this  course，  there  are  many  experiments  for  me  to  improve  my  program  skill.  It  is  good."  
•  "that  all  the  lectures  were  on  the  web.  i  didn't  aPend  many  lectures  at  all  and  passed  anyway  thanks  to  the  web  resources.  
labs"  
•  "Damir  lectures  were  verry  good."  
•  "The  labs  were  interes0ng  and  challenging  to  do."  
•  "Interes0ng  labs,  previous  exams  available."  
•  "I  enjoyed  the  theore0cal  aspects  of  this  course."  
•  "The  labs  and  the  lectures  were  very  related  to  each  other,  which  meant  that  the  lectures  helped  increase  the  understanding  
of  the  labs  and  vice  versa.  This  is  not  always  the  case  in  some  courses.  There  was  a  good  amount  of  content  in  this  course.  Not  
too  much,  but  I  s0ll  felt  like  I  learned  a  lot."  
 

16
 2012-09-03

Further  opinions  

What  was  less  good  about  the  course?  

•  "labs  take  too  much  0me  and  exam  is  not  good  idea  coz  we  didn’t  have  0me  to  be  prepare  for  exam  ,most  of  
the  0me  we  were  busy  with  labs”  
•  "That  we  had  to  wait  very  long  in  order  to  get  help  or  demo  our  labs."  
•  "Programming  exercises  are  more  or  less  focused  on  high  level  programming  which  is  not  helpful  to  clear  low  
level  concepts."  
•  "For  me  it  was  too  easy.  Some  harder  subjects  could  have  been  included  in  the  course"  
•  "The  examina0ons  on  the  labs  added  requirements  that  was  not  men0oned  in  the  descrip0on.  This  led  to  
that  you  needed  to  demonstrate  two  0mes,  the  first  0me  to  find  out  about  the  requirements."  
•  "Some  teacher's  slides  are  not  very  well.  It  is  difficult  to  understand.  At  last  ,I  give  up.”  
•  "Unspecific  lab  descrip0ons:  When  our  labs  were  demonstrated,  we  o]en  failed  because  we  needed  to  add  
something  that  were  not  spelt  out  directly  in  these  documents.  
•  "The  TAs  should  add  more  to  the  lab  documents  because  they  had  a  tendency  to  ask  for  more  than  the  lab  
specifica0ons  required  come  demonstra0on  0me”  
 

Overall  assessment  of  the  course  

1 = I am not at all satisfied 0 (0%)

2. 2 0 (0%)

3. 3 2 (10%)

4. 4 10 (48%)

5 = I am very satisfied 9 (43%)

Avg: 4,33

17
 2012-09-03

Further  opinions  

Other  comments  

 
•  "Keep  up  the  good  work!”  

•  "It  was  great  that  we  received  more  0me  to  present  the  labs,  especially  for  us  Robo0cs  student  who  
took  the  Research  Methodology  class  in  parallell  which  required  A  LOT  of  work  at  the  end.  I  know  it's  
not  something  the  school  is  obligated  to  do  so  it  was  greatly  appreciated."  

•  "The  material  was  exceedingly  interes0ng.    Minor  flaws  in  the  implementa0on  stopped  the  course  from  
geang  a  five.”  

•  "Great  class!  
I'm  hooked  on  ES  and  I  really  would  like  to  work  with  this  when  I'm  done  with  my  studies.”  
 
 
 

18