Bug in SmartRF Studio7 1.16.0?

Nikolay Neudobnoff

Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CC430F5137, CC1190

Good day, dear TI! I use SmartRf Studio7 1.16.0. to debug RF-modules based on CC430F5137. Now I need to attach RF-Frontend CC1190 to above chip, so I have to provide IO-lines to control CC1190 by CC430. I've tried to modify register_definition.xml file in the CC430 folder by adding definitions for PxOUT, xDIR and PxSEL. But, when I write required control bits to these registers there is no effect. I mean that port pins get no changes. Further more, I've found out that modifications take place in registers with the same least significant address byte as for PxOUT, for example. So, trying to write 0x01 to P3OUT (address 0x0222) actually causes writes to radiocore's register FREND0 (address 0x0022)! I suppose some bugs in xml-parser in SmartRF Studio7. Could you, please, explain me how I can work this issue around?

over 9 years ago

0 TER over 9 years ago

TI__Guru**** 317180 points

See http://e2e.ti.com/support/wireless_connectivity/f/155/t/362631.aspx

Due to the CC430 memory space SmartRF Studio is not set up to have access to registers outside RFCORE.

I assume you have developed your own board with CC430 + CC1190 that you want to test using SmartRF Studio. IF so the suggestions below are not optimal.

To control CC1190 you can use the IOCFG registers. Another option is to hardwire the CC1190 control signals for testing since with Studio you are either in Tx or Rx.

Or you can write some simple code for CC430 and use this for testing. Use SmartRF Studio to find the recommended register settings.

0 Nikolay Neudobnoff over 9 years ago in reply to TER

Prodigy 240 points

Thank you for reply,TER. You get right with your assumptions. Unfortunately, IOCFG registers are useless in my case since I can not get access to PxMAPy, PxDIR and PxSEL registers. Why in the device control panel's list of registers there are RF1A registers which are in MSP430-core memory? Is this just an error in corresponding xml, or access to MSP430 register was suggests, but was implemented with bugs? If latter, can we hope that this bug would be fixed some day?