Jump to content
43oh

kenyee

Members
  • Content Count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kenyee

  1. The MSP430-JTAG-ISO-MK2 works fine for me. Average power utilization displayed on it isn't that useful because the serial port stays powered up to transfer debug data over. Buttons are a bit cheapy feeling, but it's nice being able to program the device w/ it standalone. One big caveat if you decide to use the tag-connect cables in SWD mode is Olimex stupidly didn't make it pin compatible w/ the FET430UIF. I blogged about it: http://www.keysolutions.com/blogs/kenyee.nsf/d6plinks/KKYE-96ULEL They do update their device support fairly frequently so I'm not sure why you say new chips
  2. Damn...they figured it out...I get the you are no longer allowed to use this coupon msg too, and I've never ordered anything :-P The new STM32F4 discovery board looks a lot better though it's $24.
  3. Gotta wonder why TI cripples the memory on these :-P 256K ROM, 32K RAM on both and no external memory controller for expansion :-( decent TCP/IP stackis 200KB :-(
  4. Thanks. Decided to just desolder the part and swap a new one in. I think it got corrupted when I tried to program it w/ the standard 2.2nf capacitor...got an error about not being able to write block zero, but I think it did in some corrupted way that took out the DCO calibration values. I swapped the cap w/ a 1nf one and it downloads code cleanly now but the DCO is broken :-P
  5. There's an example in the codevault on restoring the DCO calibration data, but it seems to require that the external crystal be hooked up. I have a semi-bricked surface mount MSP430...the calibration values are apparently 0xff, so it goes into the fault routine immediately on startup...
  6. Dum question, but does this require the external crystal to be installed? I'm having this issue (lost calibration info) on a board that has a surface mount MSP430. Trying to repair the data on the MSP430 enough to get it running, but this doesn't seem to work (clock cal info still reads out as 0xff after it's done).
  7. Grrr...would have been happy to pay another $10-15 to have one w/ expandable memory :-P That's definitely something the Stellaris never had and I griped to them about that...
  8. The RM42 and TMS570 launchpads seem about the same except the RM42 has a bit faster clock speed. But only 32K of RAM? Stellaris looks more interesting... :-P
  9. It's also important to note that if you want your MSP430 to be power efficient, you *have* to implement it this way. The MSP430 isn't that power efficient when running at full speed...the PIC controllers use less power at full speed IIRC. But it sleeps well and wakes up/responds to interrupts quickly and that is its main strength...
  10. Do you even have enough code space for what you need (not sure how complicated an ESC controller gets but the quadcopter pilot code was fairly big IIRC, though it's done in Arduino which might be less efficient)? I found the MSP430 code somewhat inefficient. On my first project, I have almost 1K of code and it's maybe two pages of C code? :-(
  11. I think it depends on load and what you do w/ the MSP430. If you use the ADC's, I don't think they'd be that stable when you drop voltage that low either...
  12. What in the world does this mean? MSP430: Trouble Writing Memory Block at 0xfc00 on Page 0 of Length 0x3a0: No error I've google searched a bit and there are mentions of this, but there's usually a normal error message at the end instead of "No error" :-P This is on a new board (not the launchpad). I've checked continuity on all the parts and everything seems ok. Puzzled by this though...seems like it can't write memory, but the Olimex programmer knows that it's a valueline chip (it displays it on the LCD).
  13. Not just C code, but to use the MSP430 properly, you have to change what is probably a linear programming model in Arduino to an interrupt based one so the MSP430 can sleep to save power. It'd be more than a 36hr learning project :-P
  14. Ahh...I'm using the value line stuff which has no SVM. You might want to try this workaround if your battery voltage is high enough...basically turn off SVM if your voltage is high enough to keep power low and wakeup response speed high: http://e2e.ti.com/support/microcontrollers/msp430/f/166/t/19047.aspx 150usec is snail slow...if the Atmel or NXP Cortex chips don't need a SVM, they're obvious choices :-P
  15. Wait, so is this paper flawed? http://www.ti.com/lit/wp/slay015/slay015.pdf From what's described, I thought it mean 1us to start running because the clock stabilizes quicker than the PIC equivalent? No comparison w/ the Cortex chips, but they probably don't think it's their main competition (at least not until now when the Cortex M0+ are so low power :-)
  16. Because prototyping on the launchpad w/ a known working board is easier than building your own board, and screwing up a capacitor value or resistor value and not having it boot (did that w/ my msp430 board)-:
  17. Mostly interrupt handlers. Get an interrupt, do something as fast as possible (e.g., set a pin high). I found out the Atmel Cortex M4 also has 1.5usec interrupt response (faster than the EFM) as well, but I'm not sure if that's after the clock goes stable. On youtube, TI put up a comparison w/ the Microchip controllers (their main competitors in their opinion at the time) and it turns out the MSP430 stabilizes the clock on wakeup faster than the Microchip controller so that meant the Microchip was slower than the spec.
  18. I read this comparison a while back but had forgotten about it: http://forum.43oh.com/topic/3416-stm32l-vs-msp430f5-whats-left-for-msp430/ Yep..wow. I think the only thing the MSP430 does better is faster wakeup times of under 1usec. STM32L needs 8usec, but EFM needs 2usec. Cost for the ARM chips is of course much higher (6x, 18x respectively, but they have a lot more functionality than MSP430 valueline parts). Arduino is nice for general purpose stuff, but when you want to optimize efficiency a bit (I think it gets in the way).
  19. True...I haven't seen any that have the auto poll ADC channel feature of the MSP430's. But Cortex M4's don't come down to the MSP430's power level...only the latest M0+ ones do AFAIK. With ARM, you end up wanting to do more, and code in C++, and the M0's are pretty memory limited :-(
  20. Do any of the Cortex-M chips even come close to the MSP430 in power consumption? Only thing I can think of is Energy Micro's ARM M0 chips? Would be nice of the M4 chips could run as low as the MSP430, but they're at least an order of magnitude more power hungry from when I last looked at them last year...
  21. Pull the vcc/test/rst jumpers in the debugger section and it should fine. Or at least it does w/ a coin cell battery. If your power supply is noisy, it might be flaky as you describe...
  22. If you really need only one cell and a bit more power, look at CR123 batteries...
  23. You can use a coin cell battery as well if you disable the debugger section w/ the bright LED that sucks power :-)
  24. So you just gave them the one board file and said you wanted 100x and they panelized it for you? Does it snap off cleanly?
  25. kenyee

    reset pin

    FWIW, I can tell you that they mean it when they say the 2.2uF cap is the max you can put on. I soldered on a 100uF one by mistake and it wouldn't boot at all :-P If what you're doing works, it's probably fine. My guess is power usage as well. And a 4.7K resistor is a bad value to use too. Soldered on that by mistake one time and it wouldn't boot either :-P Yeah, I need to organize parts for soldering better :-)
×
×
  • Create New...