Skip to main content
Automated test rack with multiple Promira Serial Platforms connected via Ethernet

Running Multiple Promira Platforms in One Test System

GSAS Engineering · · 2 min read

Production test systems frequently need multiple Promira Serial Platforms running simultaneously, one per DUT station, or multiple per station for different protocol requirements. When integrating the Promira with NI LabVIEW and TestStand, intermittent error 8030 from `ps_queue_submit` can occur if the API handles and queue lifecycle are not managed correctly.

Understanding Promira Queues

The Promira API uses a queue-based architecture for I2C and SPI transactions. Rather than executing each command individually (which would incur USB or Ethernet round-trip latency for every transaction), the API accumulates multiple commands into a queue and submits them as a batch:

1. Build the queue: add I2C write, I2C read, SPI transfer, and delay commands.
2. Submit the queue: `ps_queue_submit` sends the entire batch to the Promira hardware for autonomous execution.
3. Collect results: `ps_queue_result` retrieves the outcomes of each command in the queue.

This queue architecture is what enables the Promira’s gap-free SPI streaming at 20 MHz and beyond, by keeping multiple outstanding queues in the Promira’s execution pipeline, the hardware can execute one queue while the host prepares the next, eliminating PC-to-instrument latency from the bus timing.

Root Cause: Concurrent Handle Access

The error PS_APP_PENDING_ASYNC_CMD (code 8030) occurs in two scenarios:

Race condition: Two parallel LabVIEW threads or TestStand sequences access the same Promira handle simultaneously. The Promira API is not thread-safe per handle, if thread A submits a queue while thread B is still collecting results from a previous queue on the same handle, the API returns error 8030. Uncollected results: If a previous queue’s results were not collected via `ps_queue_result` before submitting a new queue, the Promira reports pending async commands. The queue is not automatically cleared after execution.

The Fix

For race conditions: Add a 10–20 ms delay between consecutive transactions on the same handle, or use a mutex/semaphore in LabVIEW to serialize access to each Promira handle. Each physical Promira should have exactly one thread accessing its handle at any time. For uncollected results: Always call `ps_queue_result` after every `ps_queue_submit` before building and submitting the next queue. The pattern should be: build → submit → collect → build → submit → collect. For maximum throughput: Create multiple queues and submit them rapidly, the Promira hardware can hold several outstanding queues in its execution pipeline and execute them autonomously without PC intervention. This is how 20 MHz gapless SPI streaming is achieved: the host fills the pipeline faster than the Promira drains it.

Multi-Promira LabVIEW Architecture

When running N Promira platforms in a single TestStand system:

  • Open each Promira with its own handle (`ps_open` returns a unique handle per device).
  • Assign each handle to its own LabVIEW worker thread or TestStand socket.
  • Never share a handle between threads, each handle is a private resource.
  • Use the Promira’s serial number or Ethernet IP address to consistently identify which handle maps to which DUT station.

The Promira’s Gigabit Ethernet interface is particularly valuable in multi-unit test systems because it eliminates USB hub reliability issues and enables placement of each Promira directly at its test station with a standard Ethernet cable run.

GSAS Support

GSAS Micro Systems provides applications engineering support for multi-Promira test system integration, including LabVIEW VI architecture guidance, TestStand sequence design, and Ethernet networking configuration for production floor deployments across India.

Interested in Total Phase tools?

Talk to our application engineers for personalized tool recommendations.

Stay in the Loop

Get monthly compliance updates, product insights, and engineering best practices delivered to your inbox.

Related Articles

Side by side comparison of a 10BASE-T1S multidrop mixing segment, one balanced pair with four nodes on short stubs and a termination at each end, against a point to point star of four separate links into switch ports, from GSAS Micro Systems India
Automotive Ethernet Automotive & Mobility

10BASE-T1S and PLCA: Multidrop Ethernet Explained

10BASE-T1S is the one member of the T1 single-pair Ethernet family that keeps a shared medium, and PLCA is the reconciliation sublayer that stops the nodes on it from colliding. This article covers what IEEE 802.3cg standardises, how the beacon and transmit opportunities schedule a cycle, the node count and segment length figures the OPEN Alliance interoperability test suite works to, and the failure modes that put a segment quietly back into contention while every link still looks up. Written by the GSAS Micro Systems engineering team in India for teams bringing up multidrop segments on the bench.

29 Aug 2026 · 12 min read
The bench to harness adapter path drawn left to right: the ECU connector, a test lead, a media converter or pluggable T1 module, RJ45, and the host, showing where each connector family sits between the device under test and the laptop, from GSAS Micro Systems India
Automotive Ethernet Automotive & Mobility

Automotive Ethernet Connectors: H-MTD, MATEnet, MQS

An ECU arrives on the bench with a connector nobody has a mate for, and the day is gone. Search the family names and you get connector product pages that describe their own part and stop there. This article puts the families side by side in one table using only what their public pages state, then makes the point those pages leave out: the IEEE link segment definition, not the connector, is what sets reach and loss limits, and shielding is a channel decision rather than a preference. Written by the GSAS Micro Systems engineering team in India.

29 Aug 2026 · 12 min read
Side by side vehicle outlines comparing a domain E/E architecture grouped by function against a zonal E/E architecture grouped by physical location, with zone controllers on an Ethernet backbone into central compute, from GSAS Micro Systems India
Automotive Ethernet Automotive & Mobility

Domain vs Zonal E/E Architectures Explained

Domain architectures group ECUs by function, zonal architectures group them by where they sit in the vehicle. This guide is the engineer's read on the difference: what physically moves, what the in-vehicle network has to become, and what happens to diagnostics, rest bus simulation and time sync. It also refuses to repeat the harness mass and ECU-count figures that circulate without a public source, and says exactly which claims are citable and which are not. Written by the GSAS Micro Systems engineering team in India.

29 Aug 2026 · 13 min read