Jump to content
43oh

TomKraut

Members
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TomKraut

  1. Hi everyone,

     

    after being absent from the forums (this one, 43oh and C2kCentral) for a few months I thought I might share something that may be of interest to this community.

     

    As some of you may have noticed, the Stellaris controllers have all but vanished from TI's lineup. If you try a parametric search on TI's website (if you can get it running...) there are only two types of LM4s showing up. The LM3s are completely gone, and there isn't a single Cortex-M3/4 with ethernet (if you don't count the Concertos).

     

    I was at the Embedded World trade show in Nuremberg this week and asked a representative at the TI booth about it. Astonishingly, he didn't have any information for me... However, I found a TI representative at EBV's booth who was a lot more willing (or able) to share:

     

    TI is planning to launch a lot of new LM4 controllers this year. The LM3's have been discontinued (although they are still being produced and you can still buy them) because TI was never satisfied with their quality. You may know that TI purchased Luminary Micro a few years back as a response to customer's demand for a Cortex-M3 series. The LM3 was their design and according to the representative, TI never managed to solve a number of problems with it, so they scrapped the line and started their own LM4.

     

    I was promised more information via Email next week, but unfortunately this will be under NDA, so I won't be able to share too much about it...

     

    Cheers

    TomKraut

  2. Okay, this is a really old thread, but the cut-off LP programmer is just too cool to not try it... ;)

     

    However, I was wondering: where did you get the GND from? It looks like you drilled another hole for the sixth pin shown in the picture, am I right?

     

    Thanks

    TomKraut

  3. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that the C2000 realtime debug interface is not supported as an RTA channel. You could use UART but it's more suited for C6000 and the like where you have an ethernet port. Then again, I could get my SYS/BIOS reporting agents confused... wasn't RTA the one that is considered legacy and should no longer be used?

  4. Isn't the purpose of the minimal configuration that it doesn't have fancy stuff like RTA built into it...? ;)

     

    That said, I was never able to get something useful like the realtime profiling etc. options of SYS/BIOS to work on a C2000. All the docs I find are for C6000 and don't seem applicable for the much smaller C2000. Or maybe I'm just not smart enough... :D

     

    Cheers

    TomKraut

  5. Man, that code is a mess! I don't think I like the new driver library... like, at all! With the old one you could see where something went wrong just from reading the code. Now you have to read through dozens of headers and source files just to see what's going on...

     

    My suggestion would be to try running the adc examples from v1.29. You get a much better understanding of the Piccolo that way.

     

    Cheers

    TomKraut

  6. That's true, if you are building hardware with TI components, the EVMs are always your best bet. However, sometimes you need more information because of the simple fact that you are not just copying an EVM but also building your own custom hardware.

    A specific example would be the formulas necessary to find the values for the external components for the buck converter integrated into the DRV830x. They are not in the datasheet! You have to search e2e to find out that it's practically a TPS54160 and than have to use that datasheet as a reference.

    It's unlikely that we would benefit from a new datasheet for our current project, because we have just meddled through and so far everything seems just fine. But the particular datasheet for the DRV830x is just not up to the standard I expect from a TI product. And if you are releasing a BoosterPack with it, that might become a problem...

     

    Cheers

    TomKraut

    1. All XDS100 are fully capable. If you want, you can build your own from scratch, as TI has made all the schematics public.
       
    2. There are three different versions of XDS100 (v1 - v3). If you want it for C2000 development with CCS4 or newer, it doesn't matter which one you get (go for the v2).
       
    3. If you need a stand-alone XDS100 for C2000, chances are you have some skills in soldering etc... because you have build some hardware with at least one TQFP or smaller IC (the C2000... ;) ). So why not modify a $17 LaunchPad instead of buying a $79 emulator?

    Don't get me wrong, if I were in your position, I would buy the Spectrum one as well, because I can later use it with other TI processors... In fact, I have used mine to do some Linux Kernel debugging on a BeagleBoard. I just want to point out that you don't have to do it...

     

    Cheers

    TomKraut

     

    P.S.: to answer all those questions you never had about the XDS100: http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/XDS100

  7. I don't think you could cram more than one driver + fets on a BoosterPack. I have a board next to me that is approximately the size of a BoosterPack and there is no way to fit another driver + fets on it, because they don't allow parts directly under them on the bottom side. Besides, cooling them would be a nightmare!

     

    @Nick: You don't know by any chance if there is an update for the DRV8301/2 datasheet planned? The current one is a year old and missing A LOT of information which is available through threads on e2e... ;)

     

    Cheers

    TomKraut

  8. I think you can't beat TI's own XDS100v2 (made by Spectrum Digital...). $79 incl. shipping at the eStore, if I remember correctly. Or, if you don't need adaptive clocking (meaning, if you plan to only use it with C2000), you could try to repurpose a C2000 LaunchPad. Shouldn't be too hard to either desolder the ISO chips, or to cut the wires leading to the Piccolo. That way, you can get an isolated XDS100v1 for $17!

     

    Cheers

    TomKraut

  9. DRV8312 sounds great. Q3/Q4 not so much... But if you want to make a multi-purpose board with different kinds of FETs, DRV8312 sounds not so great either... ;)

     

    As for BLDC control software, I can say that the motor control library is excellent. The examples, however, should only be used as just that: a way to learn the basics, then implement your own application.

     

    Cheers

    TomKraut

  10. Thanks, the App-Note is exactly what I needed! I found it before but thought it didn't apply because it was for an older C2000. Turns out, I didn't even have to modify the register names...

  11. There seems to be yet another Piccolo... However, this time I'm not able to find anything on TI's website, except this:

     

    http://e2e.ti.com/su...1/t/191253.aspx

     

    Additionally, I managed to get a Google Cache result showing the F28055 as "new" and "active" with the smaller variants listed as "preview". Unfortunately, the links lead to blank pages.

     

    http://webcache.goog...4&hl=en&ct=clnk

     

    The new Control Suite comes with the device support files for the F2805x, so you can see what peripherals are included (no FPU, no HRCap, no DMA, apparently) and CCS 5.2 release notes mention "Flash device support for TMS320F2805x".

     

    I find it odd that the support files have already been released without even an announcement of the actual MCU. The e2e post mentions "more info in June" but it's already July and there is absolutely nothing to be found anywhere on the web.

     

    Cheers

    TomKraut

  12. Building custom kernels is part of my job... ;)

     

    When you are building embedded hardware running Linux, a custom kernel is essential, because you will never find one that has all the right drivers enabled. Some of the drivers you need are most likely not even in the mainline kernel, you have to extract them from somewhere else or write them from scratch.

     

    However, when it comes to my desktop, I prefer standard distro kernels. I'm still running Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (the LTS part was crucial for my decision to use this distro) and have never touched the kernel. But then again I only run it inside VirtualBox and do the actual development on Windows, but you can't host and compile the kernel sources on a Windows system...

     

    Cheers

    TomKraut

  13. @bluehash: A software solution that works over the network like that would be the best. However, I already tried one and it didn't work for debugging. I could install a lot of different trial versions, but I have to make a living with these computers and don't like the idea of dozens of half-installed software zombies ... :lol: So I was wondering if anyone has already successfully used something for debugging.

     

    @zeke: I wouldn't even need to convert, I could just install my node locked on a secondary computer. The license covers this. But this is exactly what I don't want to do, because it doesn't end with CCS. There is LabView, AVRStudio, IAR, in-house-software-stuff, etc. It's not only a lot of different stuff to keep up-to-date, I would also need a notebook to rival my workstation, performance wise, for this to make sense... If I use remote desktop, I can use some old thing, because it doesn't have to actually do anything.

  14. Scenario:

     

    I need to debug a device sitting on the lab table. I have a notebook with me, but the development environment (mostly CCS) is installed on my workstation in my office. I can connect to my workstation via Remote Desktop, but how do I get the debugger (MSP-FET, XDS100 etc.) to be recognized by the workstation, when it's sitting right next to me, up to 100 ft away from my desktop?

     

    I tried USB-via-network software, but the performance is too bad. I can get a connection, but it takes ages to download a program.

     

    I am open to any suggestions! Of course, installing everything on the notebook and using network shares or Git/SVN would work, but I loath having to install everything twice. Besides, this would require a much more powerful notebook to not be a pita... ;)

     

    A USB-cable extender could work, especially since we are rebuilding our offices and lab, so we could just throw a few extra cables into the walls. Any experience which of those are worth their money? Or are there any good USB-via-network hardware solutions for this scenario?

     

    Thanks!

    TomKraut

×
×
  • Create New...