On board Launchpad ICDI versus XDS100

Thanks Amit!

I will order a XDS100 and give it a try then.

However, something just caught my attention: you said "based on which version v1, v2 or v3..."

The web page I was looking at just shows V2's (address http://www.ti.com/tool/XDS100). Is there somewhere else to look? Am I missing something?

Totally off topic: I did get your DMA code reply on another post, thanks - I will comment there once I have the chance to try it, that's why I left your helping message with no thanking for now!

Hello Bruno,

Look at the footnotes in the following link. (100v1 I haven't seen for quite some time, though I have one)

http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/XDS_Target_Connection_Guide#JTAG_connectors_cross_reference

Regards

Amit

Sorry if this sounds like a commercial...

If you want the best speed and also more advanced debug capabilities look beyond TI and CCS.  Those tools are fine for their purpose but it sounds like you may be stretching them.  Look at Keil and IAR.  Both now have eclipse plugins I believe if you want to stay in that IDE.  Both have USB to JTAG adapters that are fast, reliable and in some cases offer debug features not found on CCS.

In the end make your own cost vs benefit decision but I just want to make sure you are not overly narrowing your search parameters.

Dexter,

I understand your point. I love tools - whatever the task, developing code, running cables in the house, fixing the plumbing, I like to use good tools.

Our first projects in this company were based on MSP430, and I had never used CCS. We paid the IAR licence and updates for a few years. Now that our products use Tiva ARM's, we began with IAR which was natural, but when it came to the point of writing the cheque, I decided to give CCS a try. The second reason for that is because I also wanted to use TI-RTOS and it was easier to find instructions with CCS.

I may be a basic user. But my conclusion so far is that I have a much better experience with CCS then IAR. Simple tasks like copying or migrating a new project are way easier. The editing interface is quite smart and useful. Settings are similarly found "if you know where to look for". And the debugging features are enough for my needs, although the EK onboard debbuger is extremely slow and almost useless.

One difference about CCS: whenever I had a doubt that was beyond the basic "read the manual", I posted it on this forum and got an immediate reply which was very clear and helpful. IAR has a professional support team, but in the end I had a faster and more amiable response from the "free TI community".

Maybe IAR has more powerful features, and whoever taught me on it has done a bad job... Our basic J-Link Arm debugger isn't that awesome either... So for now I will develop on CCS with XDS, soon to be XDS200. It certainly seems to be more than enough for creating single core Tiva TM4 code.

By no means I mean a rude reply, if this sounds like such. I really appreciate your suggestion and will always keep the search wide. I just wanted to exchange some thoughts that were on my mind for a while - and maybe start a thread of opinions.

Cheers

Bruno

No worries.  I do not take your reply as rude in any way.  It sounds like you have indeed done the research and made a logical conclusion based on your needs.  That is about all we can ask of anyone.

My thanks to you for a detailed and thoughtful reply.  For the record I still use CCS professionally for Tiva, but am keeping an eye on the other options.  As a consultancy I expect my needs will grow beyond TI devices and at that time the choice will be much more pressing.

My primary objective was to make sure you were aware of the options, clearly you are (more so perhaps then myself).

Best of luck on the project.

Gentlemen,

I received my XDS100 today and did some "feeling" performance tests. Reviewing my setup: this is a Win7 machine running CCS6.01, with a XDS100v2 connected to a EK TM4C129x launchpad.

There is a significantly better step-by-step debugging performance compared to the onboard ICDI emulator. The XDS100 flows much faster and "naturally".

It is just a feeling, there were no measurements there - but I can say that the low investment of US$ 79.00 provides a good value on the debugging experience. It is probably nothing compared to the XDS200, but it will make your development life much easier if you are working with Launchpads.

Cheers,

Bruno

Hello Bruno,

Just check the TCK on the board coming from the XDS100. That should answer some part of the performance

As for the ICDI it is emulated using another TM4C123 device, so there would be some delay in USB to JTAG.

As I have mentioned earlier, the whole idea was to keep the cost of the board down for developers, but folks are free to choose as well.

Regards

Amit

Hi Amit,

I surely understand your point. I didn't mean to criticize the launchpad debugger! There is a lot to learn by using such a low cost hardware as the EK-x, and you can even develop professional applications with it.

My point is just to share the feeling that, if one is looking for a bit better performance but is still not ready to invest on more expensive debuggers (and the CSS licence associated), then the first step XDS100 will give him a good value.

Cheers!

Bruno

Hello Bruno

Sharing such info is always better for forum users. Thanks for bringing back the results from your usage back to the forum. We always do appreciate it.

Regards

Amit

Check out this:

http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/XDS_Performance_comparison

Timor