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.

TPS65400: Sending "SOFT_RESET" is answered with NACK, and does not reset

Part Number: TPS65400

Hi Everybody,

I have a configuration routine for the tps65400 that programs all of the configuration registers with my application specific settings.  Each write is read back along the way is ensure it was written correctly, and all these steps complete with no problems.  I then burn the settings by sending the byte STORE_DEFAULT_ALL, also with no issue.

Up to this point the I2C commands of send byte, send word, and read byte have all been used multiple times without any issue, and I can power cycle the IC and verify that all my new settings were properly stored.

My goal is to read back the config sittings by sending the SOFT_RESET byte instead of power cycling, and this is where I have the problem.  I send SOFT_RESET byte, and the tps65400 responds with an I2C NACK, and it does not reset the chip.

Am I missing something here?  Do I need satisfy some pre-condition before I can send the SOFT_RESET byte?  I haven't yet tried a second chip.

Thanks, -Sparkchaser

  • Hi, Sir 

    When do the SOFT_RESET, we must keep power on the TPS65400.

    Some comments:

    1. Suggest to do another SOFT_RESET after 1st SOFT_RESET, interval time is 10~50mS.

    --> If not fixed, please do power cycling one time, then try SOFT_RESET command.

    I remember for the fresh IC, we must do power cycle one time, after that, you can use the SOFT_RESET command to reset IC.

    2. Suggest to toggle CE pin to reset IC, it is equivalent to SOFT_RESET.

  • Thank you for responding and confirming that this chip does have an issue with soft reset. I will keep trying different combinations until I get it working for this board.

    "2. Suggest to toggle CE pin to reset IC, it is equivalent to SOFT_RESET."
    Throwing in an extra pin into a tight system isn't always so easy, but this is what I will do on the next revision if I can't get the I2C solution working.

    Thanks,
    Bryce
  • I just noticed, I am not longer called "Sparkchaser" on this forum, and all of my points have been reduced to zero. It might appear that I am new to this, but I am not. :)>