What’s troubling me with the RPi.GPIO python library?

AlarmPi needs to monitor 2 inputs currently: the switch and the PIR.  Once the AlarmHub is finished, it needs to track a TCP socket as well so that when one Alarm goes off, the hub can tell all the others to go off too.

There are several ways for the RPi.GPIO library to monitor and report inputs:

  • RPi.GPIO.input(channel) but you’d need to poll frequently and would probably miss a change
  • RPi.GPIO.wait_for_edge() blocks, so you wouldn’t miss the event, but it can only track one channel; the Alarm + Hub needs at least 3
  • RPi.GPIO.edge_detected() doesn’t block, which means that although it still only covers 1 channel again, each could be checked in turn; in addition, the input is latched until read meaning it can’t be missed.  The downside is that you’d need to keep checking say once a second to detect switch and PIR changes
  • RPi.GPIO.add_event_detect() allows a callback to be made when an edge is detected; unfortunately this happens on a separate thread, and does not wake a sleeping main thread.  The only way to work around this is for the callback thread to send os.signal(signal.SIGINT) to wake the sleeping main thread via a signal handler, but that then makes it harder to use ctrl-C to stop the code.

AlarmPi currently uses this last option as the only one that can be made to work efficiently, but the code shows the messy interactions between callbacks, the main thread. and the signal handler. It’s also forced to have a super extended debounce selected (30s) on the switch callback; once the switch is turned on, it needs to beep / light the LED for 30s to allow the user to leave the room before the PIR is enabled. Because the switch callback doesn’t wake the main thread, this 30s processing takes place in the callback itself. To allow this to work, the callback bounce delay must be longer than 30s. If it isn’t, then when the alarm is turned on, any bounce in the switch is queued until the 30s callback has finished, and then it is processed, immediately toggling the switch off again disabling the PIR as though the user had turned it off. With this hacky debounce delay of 30s, this actually means once the hub exists that if you accidentally turn on the alarm, you can’t turn it off until the PIR is active, at which point attempting to turn off the alarm will trigger the PIR, and most likely deploy the CS gas, ring the police etc. Yet without the hacky fix, any switch bounce (likely) will automatically turn the alarm off immediately every time you try to turn it on; catch 22.

When the Hub comes along, the situation gets worse as the main thread would need to sleep until an intruder is detected, and then use a sockets.select() call for receiving data, meaning yet more messy interactions with callbacks and signal handlers.

So I’m looking at modifying the RPi.GPIO library.  Here’s my current plan:

  • Make the RPi.GPIO library more object oriented:
  • GPIO.setup() returns a gpio object representing a single channel / GPIO pin.  Errors are reported via Try: Except handlers
  • Currently, in the C library, each GPIO pin is accessed via a file descriptor (fd) passed to epoll() for input and write() for output – these would now be stored inside the GPIO class object, one per channel
  • A new python class function gpio.socket() returns the fd in a socket object.
  • In turn, this fd can be used by socket.select() (I hope!) just as other TCP sockets are used; the advantage here is that select can watch many fds at a time, sleep when nothing is happening, and wake when one or more sockets have something to report.
  • The current blocking functions RPi.GPIO.input and output would still be supported.
  • The current callbacks would become unnecessary, as would the wait_for_edge, edge_detected, and add_event_detect – the sockets solution provides a solution covering these and more, although support for them should be retained if at all possible for back-compatibility reasons.
  • In passing, I’ll also fix another restriction I hit in the Turtle project, where a GPIO output always is set up with default value 0; instead RPi.GPIO.setup() will carry an extra parameter, defaulted to 0, but allowing the user to specify 1 if needed.

The only problem is I have no idea how Python libraries really work.  I have the ‘C’ code for the RPi.GPIO library, and 22 years experience of writing C code.  I’m just not 100% confident that the GPIO fds can be used by socket.select (although I think it should work since select() uses epoll() under the surface) nor am I experienced in writing the C code to support the new python class required.

Sounds like an interesting challenge. Not sure whether I’m up to it, but I’ll give it a try in the background.

2 thoughts on “What’s troubling me with the RPi.GPIO python library?

  1. Hi!, nice post, I’m starting to give it a look to the gpio interface and I’ll probably implement what I require (simultaneously monitor > 24 gpio for input) with some custom code reading to the /sys/class/gpio/ interface, I’ll use the beaglebone black, and in the mean time I’m experimenting with the pi, but about this points:

    “A new python class function gpio.socket() returns the fd in a socket object.

    In turn, this fd can be used by socket.select() (I hope!) just as other TCP sockets are used; the advantage here is that select can watch many fds at a time, sleep when nothing is happening, and wake when one or more sockets have something to report..”

    I think epoll does support the monitoring of a big number of files simultaneously, that’s the idea of epoll, or at least that what I understand about epoll. Switching from epoll to select is like a step backwards in my opinion.

    This an stackoverflow question of the comparison of the two:
    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6303507/epoll-vs-select

    Cheers.

    • Hi Joel,

      Thanks for your response; I’ve managed to work around the exisingt RPi.GPIO limitations for now, but am considering swapping over to the RPIO interface, since that has better support for the features I need. My ideal would be to write my own C to Python library taking the PWM code from RPIO, and write new code for file-descriptor support for the GPIO pins. The only thing holding me back is the lack of knowledge about how to write the Python – C mappings, and the fact I’d rather work on projects using them rather than actually writing the APIs myself!

      There will be a new post soon about the RPIO / RPi.GPIO choice.

      Hove

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *