Jump to content
SteveR

New Launchpad just dropped

Recommended Posts

Just noticed a new launchpad MSP-EXP430FR4133 appeared on the website this morning:

Microcontroller Features
  • 16MHz
  • 16 KB FRAM
  • 2 KB RAM
  • 256-segment LCD controller
  • 10-channel 10-bit ADC
  • 3 16-bit timers
  • 60 GPIO
  • SPI, I2C and UART Support
BoosterPack connector

20 pin BoosterPack connector

Why this LaunchPad?
  • Lowest power MCU in the industry with an integrated LCD controller
  • Integrated 16kB FRAM for experiencing fast non-volatile memory writes
  • Analog and digital integration including a 10-bit ADC and IR Modulation Logic
Price

$13.99

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of thoughts on the blog post:  
Says this is the second FRAM launchpad - what about the Fraunchpad?  (MSP-EXP430FR5739)
(or is that not considered a launchpad, even though it uses the same format.)
 
"tons of GPIO" - well, not if you are considering the launchpad (20 pin header, not even the 40 pin).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of thoughts on the blog post:  

Says this is the second FRAM launchpad - what about the Fraunchpad?  (MSP-EXP430FR5739)

(or is that not considered a launchpad, even though it uses the same format.)

 

"tons of GPIO" - well, not if you are considering the launchpad (20 pin header, not even the 40 pin).

I get the impression that the FR5739 series itself along with its LaunchPad are lost to history.  IIRC the FraunchPad didn't even conform to the general launchpad standard (being that it was a pretty early one), but I am assuming the FR57xx series is also going to be phased out at some point once suitable Wolverine-derived replacement parts come about.  You'll probably still see the part sold for a while though.  I vaguely recall oPossum talking about how he toasted the FRAM on his fraunchpad from updating a framebuffer ... so I would guess the FR57xx was a "version 1.0" FRAM technology under the hood as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Device family guide for FR4xx & FR2xx:

http://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/slau445 Page 104.

 

NOTE: The MSP430X CPUX implemented on this device family, formally called CPUXV2, has in

some cases, slightly different cycle counts from the MSP430X CPUX implemented on the

2xx and 4xx families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOTE: The MSP430X CPUX implemented on this device family, formally called CPUXV2, has in

some cases, slightly different cycle counts from the MSP430X CPUX implemented on the

2xx and 4xx families.

So now the term "CPUX" is ambiguous and differs on a per-family basis. Excellent. We needed more inconsistency and confusion in the MSP430 product line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now the term "CPUX" is ambiguous and differs on a per-family basis. Excellent. We needed more inconsistency and confusion in the MSP430 product line.

Are you sure that's what's happening?  I thought CPUXV2 was well established from the F5xxx/6xxx, FR5xxx/6xxx lines...

That exact same wording is employed in the F5xxx/6xxx user's guide as well (SLAU208) page 183.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure that's what's happening?  I thought CPUXV2 was well established from the F5xxx/6xxx, FR5xxx/6xxx lines...

That exact same wording is employed in the F5xxx/6xxx user's guide as well (SLAU208) page 183.

You're right. I misread "formally called CPUXV2" as "formerly called CPUXV2". (BTW: If you reference a SLAU, please specify which version. SLAU208M page 183 documents the UCSCTL8 register, and doesn't have the "formally" phrase added in SLAU208N.)

 

What I was afraid of was that the preprocessor symbols were going to change, which would be bad. (Still reeling from TI changing the version register values in the CC110x radio line because they went to a different manufacturing process but kept the same functionality.)

 

TI should check the headers though. The msp430fr4131.h header from msp430-elf has #define __MSP430FR5XX_6XX_FAMILY__ which can't be right.

 

AFAICT there are three sub-families in FRxx now: the original FR57xx (slau272c), the Wolverine FR58xx/FR59xx/FR68xx/FR69xx (slau367e), and the new FR4xx/FR2xx (slau445). The FR57xx isn't mentioned on the FRxx overview page any more, but apparently still exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FR57xx is listed here, on the products page, and being shown as active.

 

Perhaps TI is 'deprecating' them due to the following blurb in http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/slat151/slat151.pdf: {emphasis added} "The MSP430FR58xx and MSP430FR59xx family of devices, and all FRAM-based MSP430 products released in 2014 or later will support application programming of devices prior to reflow. For the FR57xx family only, application programming is recommended post reflow."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@abcedarian Interesting. A bug where reflow temperatures might erase the FRAM contents perhaps?

Probably something about the manufacturing process.

 

Same slat151 also states: "...our newest generation of devices can survive the same soldering and reflow conditions as any Flash part. Data retention on older FRAM memory, however, cannot be guaranteed when exceeding the specified maximum storage temperature (150?C)."

...and...

"If hand soldering is required for application prototyping of MSP430FR57xx devices, peak temperature must not exceed 250

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High temperatures is one of the achilles heels of FRAM technology, FYI.  Looks like it's taken some refinement for them to get it to survive reflow.

 

Additionally, a "memory" issue can occur when FRAM is held at high temperatures for long periods of time ... from SLAA526 (revision A), page 3:

ImprintFerroelectric memories experience an effect in which data in one logic state can strengthen when thememory cell is exposed to high temperatures over long periods. This effect (the stabilization of polarizationinto a particular state) is known as imprint. However, imprinting also weakens the ability of the FRAM cellto store the complementary state data [3]. Unlike thermal depolarization, the effect of imprinting ispermanent and is not lessened with a reduction in temperature. Note that while complete thermaldepolarization occurs at the transition temperature of 430

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×