• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 30 subscribers
  • Views 263 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

TAS5731: Two issues: 1. Setting for Mix52/Mixer_0 does not calculate the displayed setting (shows 1.0 - is actually 0.0)

Ryan Origin
Prodigy 30 points
Part Number: TAS5731
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TAS5711, TAS5825M, TAS5805M

Hello,

New to hardware DSP development, but I work with some very smart and capable engineers.

Here's where I'm at:

We are creating a product featuring TAS5731

I am programming the DSP for it using the GDE. I am easily able to make a proper connection with my eval board to make and save parameter settings as PFW.

This all works mostly as expected.

The issue I am having currently is two fold.

Issue 1: A setting is showing 1.0, but actually calculating 0.0
That setting is Mix52/Mixer_0




Steps to reproduce issue
1. Load PFW
2. Note Setting of Mix52/Mixer_0 (It is 1.0)
3. Simply re-type 1.0 over the top of this setting
4. Channel assignment will respond appropriately. (In this case, the setting allows for mono channel operation - without it, one channel is not mono summed)
5. Re-load PFW, setting will again say 1.0 but not actually calculate 1.0 until you re-type in 1.0
6. Repeat until head explodes.

Expected Behavior:

The setting displaying 1.0 should calculate 1.0 after recalling PFW settings.

Are there other settings doing this?

Issue 2

My GDE shows TAS5711 as the "Current Device"- is this a problem?
Will I have settings translation issues if I burn these to production hardware?

Thanks, happy to provide more info.




  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 20750 points

    Hi Ryan,

    It's been a while since I've used this GUI so I'll need some time to check this out. 

    Out of curiosity what made you decide to use the TAS5731? We have newer devices like the TAS5805M and the TAS5825M. 

    Regards,

    Robert Clifton

  • 0 in reply to Robert Clifton56
    Prodigy 30 points

    Hi, Robert!

    Thanks for the speedy reply!


    I was not part of the process by which we picked 5731 component for our product.

    As for the issue, I've worked with one of our engineers on this issue. I can repeatably safe CFGs from working PFWs that do not translate certain settings, as laid out before.
    I was provided the following information:

    "It seems that both x46 and x52 data are written twice, but the number of times x46 is written is the same, so it does not affect it. But the second data written by x52 is different. Generally, the data written the second time is correct. This issue needs to be communicated with TI. I don't understand the reason for this."

    Please see the attached CFG and




    Thanks!

    -Ryan

  • 0 in reply to Ryan Origin
    TI__Genius 17467 points

    Hello Ryan, 

    Sorry for the late reply! 

    I will be taking over for the support of this issue. Are you still in the same roadblock or is there something else that I can help you with? 

    All the best,

    Carolina

  • 0 in reply to Caro Walter
    Prodigy 30 points

    Carolina!

    So, here's what we determined:


    In our case using the GDE for our TAS model, the CFGs exported by the system do not contain the correct values regarding Mix52_Mixer_0

    This is repeatably true. If you diverge from the standard routing, the settings are not saved.

    So, our engineer figured out that we could export the CFG, edit the hex to work around this issue, and successfully burn firmware for our TAS implementation without issue.

    FYI, the reason we were making the change to that parameter and found this issue is we need both a mono and stereo workflow that will be toggled between by our users via the physical interface.

    Had we not needed to make the system mono, we never would have adjusted Mix52_Mixer_0

    Thanks,

    -Ryan