• State
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 62 subscribers
  • Views 595 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.

UCD90124A Fusion Offline Seq Dwn

John Lally
Intellectual 495 points
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: UCD90124A

Hello TI E2E,

   Using Fusion software offline with UCD90124A device selected to create a 3 rail sequence where it's intended for all three rails to be enabled at the same time, then sequence down 3->2->1.  Have been unable to get rail 1 to sequence down dependent upon rail 2.  Have exhausted what i could think of to try and E2E posts.  First time using Fusion so probably operator error, please advise on what i might do to diagnose.  Screen shot below showing Rail 1 seq off configured dependent on Rail 2 but plot shows Rail 1 seq off NOT dependent on Rail 2?

  • 0
    TI__Expert 5450 points

    Not sure how you get into this state: the rail configuration shown is for rail #2, not rail #1 (voltage setting is for rail 2) => according to the configuration, rail 1 does not depend on rail 2 for sequence off. Did you open the project file (.xml) generated from older GUI version? Try manually re-configure rail 1 to depend on rail 2 for sequence off and see if the issue still there

  • 0 in reply to Anne Ngo77
    Intellectual 495 points

    Hi Anne,

     Thanks for the response.  Here's step by step how the Fusion software gets into this state.  Can you please try to recreate and let me know if you see the same behavior, or i can email you the Fusion HTML file if you provide me with your email address.  I did try to manual enter from scratch and the same behavior results.  Thanks -John

    1.)    In Pin Assignment Tab,  Define Rail 1:

    1. Voltage = Pin 5 MON5
    2. Enable = Pin 25 GPIO13

    2.)    In Vout Config Tab (With Rail 1 Selected) NOTE: Fusion asks to Write out Rail changes which I did.

    1. Vout = 2.25V
    2. On/Off Config = Operation Only
    3. On Delay = 0
    4. Off Delay = 0
    5. Time outs = 0

    3.)    In Pin Assignment Tab, Add Rail 2:

    1. Voltage = Pin 1 MON1
    2. Enable = Pin 11 GPIO1

    4.)    In Vout Config Tab (With Rail 2 Selected): NOTE: Fusion asks to Write, Restart, & Save changes to see changes made: Answered OK to this question.

    1. Vout = 2.00V
    2. On/Off Config = Operation Only
    3. On Delay = 0
    4. Off Delay = 0
    5. Time outs = 0

    5.)    Select Rail 1 to Edit in Vout Config Tab and check Rail Off Dependencies Box 2.

    1. This is intended to make Rail 1 come down based on Rail 2.

    6.)    In Pin Assignment Tab, Add Rail 3:

    1. Voltage = Pin 2 MON2
    2. Enable = Pin 12 GPIO2

    7.)    In Vout Config Tab (With Rail 3 Selected):  NOTE: Fusion asks to Write, Restart & Save changes to see changes made: Answered OK to this question.

    1. Vout = 1.50V
    2. On/Off Config = Operation Only
    3. On Delay = 0
    4. Off Delay = 2ms
    5. Time outs = 0

    8.)    Select Rail 2 to Edit in Vout Config Tab and check Rail Off Dependencies Box3

    1. This is intended to make Rail 2 come down based on Rail 3.

                        i.      When Off Dependencies Box 3 is checked the falling edge of Rail 2 pushes past Rail 3 as expected (i.e. Rail  2 off depends on Rail 3 going off)

                       ii.      But here’s the confusing thing: Even though Rail 1 off has been made dependent to Rail 2 off (see 5.a above) when Rail 2 off moves in this step, Rail 1 off doesn’t move with it.  Rail 2 off slides right past Rail 1 off which based on the off dependencies shouldn’t be possible?  This is the behavior that is confusing and I need help with.

  • 0 in reply to John Lally
    TI__Expert 5450 points

    Thanks for you detail steps, John. It is the GUI bug,  GUI does not count for the timing of rail dependencies (rail 3) of the rail it depends on (rail 2).  This bug is on the GUI only (displayed on the plots) and will not affect the functionality of the device.

    We will report this bug to the GUI group.