Jump to content
43oh

MSP430F55xx Launchpad Compatible breakout


Recommended Posts

Does there exist such a thing as a MSP430F55xx breakout board that fits on the Launchpad? Does such a thing make sense at all?

Once in a while it would be nice to have a MSP430 with a bit more power than the G-series allows, and I have wondered if a sensible laid out Launchpad-compatible breakout board for the F55xx-series could be made.

 

While I know that it is not possible to have a 1:1 mapping between G and F series pins, it might be enough to have the USCI A0/B0 pins mapped properly to the Launchpad, to allow at least some of the existing Boosters to work hardware wise with the F5510 or similar.

 

Does this seem hopeless to you guys, or just plain silly?

 

Cheers,

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ahh, thanks for the link. My search-fu completely failed me. I see the point that TopHatHacker raises, about not having a completely certain pin layout in the first place.

However, my initial though was actually to create a pin layout for the bigger MCUs which is backwards compatible with the Launchpad. But I have to admit that your idea of being able to attach three Booster Packs is really cool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about making MSP430F5510/MSP430F5310 board, 5510 on one side, 5310 on the other (TI doesn't make things easy.)

The board would be 2" x 2" (Seeed) and have one set of LP compatible headers, so that existing booster packs could be plugged on top. When used with stacking headers, programming would be done by plugging on top of LP, otherwise, programming would require 4 wires (from LP.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pin function compatibility certainly is a problem.

 

It will be interesting to see how compatible the Wolverine and C2000 boards are and if they have any usable additional IO.

 

Indeed. I have this nasty feeling that the layout will be completely new. But let's see...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking about making MSP430F5510/MSP430F5310 board, 5510 on one side, 5310 on the other (TI doesn't make things easy.)

The board would be 2" x 2" (Seeed) and have one set of LP compatible headers, so that existing booster packs could be plugged on top. When used with stacking headers, programming would be done by plugging on top of LP, otherwise, programming would require 4 wires (from LP.)

 

That sounds a lot like what I want. While it is annoying that 55xx and 53xx are not completely pin compatible, I actually don't mind having separate boards for different series. It's more about ease of programming and reusing existing booster packs for prototyping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there are only 4 pins with different functions (F5510-PT48 & F5310-PT48,) it would probably be easier and cleaner just to use headers to map those different pins and have just one device on board.

 

How about something simple like this: [see 2 posts down]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since there are only 4 pins with different functions (F5510-PT48 & F5310-PT48,) it would probably be easier and cleaner just to use headers to map those different pins and have just one device on board.

 

Oh, I thought I saw more incompabilities. I guess that teaches me not to stare at datasheets after midnight :oops:

 

How about something simple like this:

[attachment=0]5510-5310.png[/attachment]

 

That looks really promising.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question, how should I map the LP pins, by port number or by function?

Port number:

P1.0 -> P1.0, P1.1 -> P1.1, P1.2 -> P1.2, etc.

Function:

P4.0-P4.5 (USA & UCB) -> P1.1, P1.2, P1.4-P1.7

P6.0 -> P1.0 (A0) or P1.0 -> P1.0 (TA0CLK)

P6.3 -> P1.3 (A3)

P1.7 -> P2.0 (TA1.0)

P2.0 -> P2.1 (TA1.1)

P1.2 -> P2.6 (TA0.1)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Question, how should I map the LP pins, by port number or by function?

Port number:

P1.0 -> P1.0, P1.1 -> P1.1, P1.2 -> P1.2, etc.

Function:

P4.0-P4.5 (USA & UCB) -> P1.1, P1.2, P1.4-P1.7

P6.0 -> P1.0 (A0) or P1.0 -> P1.0 (TA0CLK)

P6.3 -> P1.3 (A3)

P1.7 -> P2.0 (TA1.0)

P2.0 -> P2.1 (TA1.1)

P1.2 -> P2.6 (TA0.1)

 

I vote for mapping pins by function, with USCI having first priority as that makes some of the current G2553 code compatible with the F5510. Regarding the A?/TA?.? functions I don't really know what makes most sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...