SM470R1B1M-HT: Customer has some issue on this device that Memory Security locked can't unlock.

Hi Jimmy,

  I have a few questions.

  - Is this a virgin device? In another word, has the chip been programmed by the customer to secure the memory? If the device is used the first time then the 128-bit key should have been all 1's which will unsecure the device by default.

  - Is this the only board that the customer has problem to connect? Does the customer have other boards that can connect successfully?

  - Did the customer ever program something accidently to the password location stored in the four words before the flash protection keys. Please refer to the below datasheet and user's guide notes. 

Hi Charles,

Is this a virgin device?  

No, before we had program more pcs.

Is this the only board that the customer has problem to connect? Does the customer have other boards that can connect successfully?

No, we had program 2 different model board, but had same error.

Hi Jimmy,

  I'm confused with your two answers.

Jimmy WANG said:

No, before we had program more pcs.

My question is if the device is brand new and is being programmed the very first time? In another word, if you had successfully programmed any code, perhaps a few times before it started to show errors? 

Jimmy WANG said:

No, we had program 2 different model board, but had same error.

This is where I'm confused. You are saying both boards are showing the same error? It leads me to suspect if this is a setup problem on your debug probe.

 Do you have other boards to try?

 Do you have at least one board that is working?

 Do you have EVM board to try out?

Hi Charles,

Sorry for the confused.

To my first answer: Every device is all new that this window message will appear if it is the faulty IC. Change new one will solve the problem. 

 Do you have other boards to try?  Some board is normal. fail rate is  12/29 

 Do you have at least one board that is working? yes

 Do you have EVM board to try out? NO

Hi Jimmy,

Jimmy WANG said:

 Do you have other boards to try?  Some board is normal. fail rate is  12/29 

This is a extremely high failure rate at 40%. I will suggest an ABA swap test to narrow down whether it is a MCU or a board level issue. 

The A-B-A Swap Method is a simple cross check test, which can confirm the observed issue is not systemic.

• A-B-A Swap Method
  (1) Remove the suspected component (A) from the original failing board.
  (2) Replace the suspected component (A) with a known good component (B) and check if the original board now works properly.
  (3) Mount the suspected component (A) to a known good board and see if the same faliure occurs on the good board.

Step 3 is important because it helps us to exclude any possibility that the issue is caused by a systemic issue or the interaction of multiple slightly bad components on a good board.

Hi Charles,

Yes, Customer change new one will solve issue. I replied last post. But customer no any new board can remount fail device.

HI Jimmy,

  Can you provide the device marking with LTC for all the failed devices? 

Hi Charle,

The customer found the issue again. The device is locked 2 pcs and can not find device through sofware 1 pcs.

Lot No.

0000930MTT 

9009955MTT

HI Jimmy,

  I suppose these devices are purchased from Arrow. Is that correct? I will check internally if the corresponding LTC has any abnormality.  

Hi Charles,

yes. from Arrow. 

Jimmy WANG said:

The customer found the issue again. The device is locked 2 pcs and can not find device through sofware 1 pcs.

Lot No.

0000930MTT 

9009955MTT

Hi Jimmy,

  Can you tell me where do you find the lot numbers. Do you have a copy of the document that shows the lot info?

Hi Charles,

From customer label info. 

Hi Jimmy,

  Thanks. I will get back with you.

Hi Charle,

Any feedback? thanks 

Hi Jimmy,

  We just got the data un-archived and will go through the data. I'm an application engineer, not a production engineer.  Therefore, I need internal experts to go through the data. 

Hi Charles,

Got it. Very appreciate. 

Hi Jimmy,

  We need to brainstorm internally about your issue. We have looked at some production data for your listed devices and lots and do not see anything that can explain your findings. 

  - Which debug probe (emulator) and IDE or toolchains do you use to download the firmware?

  - Do you have another debug probe and IDE that you can try and still repeat the problem?

  - Does your IDE/toolchain provide a means to verify the JTAG scan chains? If yes, can you do a JTAG scan chain test on both a good and a fail unit?

 - Can you compare the JTAG signals (TMS, TDI and TDO) between a good and a fail unit? 

Hi Charles,

Customer reply as below. 

The customer had a locking problem in production before.
At that time, their end customer told him that it was a date code problem.

----------

 - Which debug probe (emulator) and IDE or toolchains do you use to download the firmware?

A: Lauterbach In-Circuit Debugger

  - Do you have another debug probe and IDE that you can try and still repeat the problem?

A:We only one to do the program, and we had re-program more time, but still failed.

  - Does your IDE/toolchain provide a means to verify the JTAG scan chains? If yes, can you do a JTAG scan chain test on both a good and a fail unit?

A: I am not sure.

 - Can you compare the JTAG signals (TMS, TDI and TDO) between a good and a fail unit? 

A: We had compare the signals, didn't found the different.

Jimmy WANG said:

The customer had a locking problem in production before.
At that time, their end customer told him that it was a date code problem.

Hi Jimmy,

  Earlier you said the fail rate is 12/29. Can you please show the lot number of the good units? It will be good to know if the fail units and the good units are from the same lot. 

Jimmy WANG said:

A: Lauterbach In-Circuit Debugger

  - Do you have another debug probe and IDE that you can try and still repeat the problem?

A:We only one to do the program, and we had re-program more time, but still failed.

  - Does your IDE/toolchain provide a means to verify the JTAG scan chains? If yes, can you do a JTAG scan chain test on both a good and a fail unit?

A: I am not sure.

 - Can you compare the JTAG signals (TMS, TDI and TDO) between a good and a fail unit? 

A: We had compare the signals, didn't found the different.

Thanks for the feedback. At the moment, I'm out of ideas. As to the JTAG scan chain test, can you contact Lauterbach if such test is possible? Below is what can be done in CCS IDE if you are familiar with CCS. I wonder if an equivalent test is available in Lauterbach. 

Here is an example scan test output log using a XDS200 debug probe to connect to a MCU device. 

[Start: Texas Instruments XDS2xx USB Debug Probe_0]

Execute the command:

%ccs_base%/common/uscif/dbgjtag -f %boarddatafile% -rv -o -S integrity

[Result]


-----[Print the board config pathname(s)]------------------------------------

C:\Users\a0321879\AppData\Local\TEXASI~1\
    CCS\ccs1011\0\0\BrdDat\testBoard.dat

-----[Print the reset-command software log-file]-----------------------------

This utility has selected a 560/2xx-class product.
This utility will load the program 'xds2xxu.out'.
The library build date was 'May  7 2020'.
The library build time was '20:23:44'.
The library package version is '9.2.0.00002'.
The library component version is '35.35.0.0'.
The controller does not use a programmable FPGA.
The controller has a version number of '13' (0x0000000d).
The controller has an insertion length of '0' (0x00000000).
This utility will attempt to reset the controller.
This utility has successfully reset the controller.

-----[Print the reset-command hardware log-file]-----------------------------

This emulator does not create a reset log-file.

-----[Perform the Integrity scan-test on the JTAG IR]------------------------

This test will use blocks of 64 32-bit words.
This test will be applied just once.

Do a test using 0xFFFFFFFF.
Scan tests: 1, skipped: 0, failed: 0
Do a test using 0x00000000.
Scan tests: 2, skipped: 0, failed: 0
Do a test using 0xFE03E0E2.
Scan tests: 3, skipped: 0, failed: 0
Do a test using 0x01FC1F1D.
Scan tests: 4, skipped: 0, failed: 0
Do a test using 0x5533CCAA.
Scan tests: 5, skipped: 0, failed: 0
Do a test using 0xAACC3355.
Scan tests: 6, skipped: 0, failed: 0
All of the values were scanned correctly.

The JTAG IR Integrity scan-test has succeeded.

-----[Perform the Integrity scan-test on the JTAG DR]------------------------

This test will use blocks of 64 32-bit words.
This test will be applied just once.

Do a test using 0xFFFFFFFF.
Scan tests: 1, skipped: 0, failed: 0
Do a test using 0x00000000.
Scan tests: 2, skipped: 0, failed: 0
Do a test using 0xFE03E0E2.
Scan tests: 3, skipped: 0, failed: 0
Do a test using 0x01FC1F1D.
Scan tests: 4, skipped: 0, failed: 0
Do a test using 0x5533CCAA.
Scan tests: 5, skipped: 0, failed: 0
Do a test using 0xAACC3355.
Scan tests: 6, skipped: 0, failed: 0
All of the values were scanned correctly.

The JTAG DR Integrity scan-test has succeeded.

[End: Texas Instruments XDS2xx USB Debug Probe_0]

Hi Charles,

Thanks for your great support.

lot code is waiting customer feedback.

Also, I do not understand contact Lauterbach is for what? output log? I am not familiar with CCS. 

Hi Charles,

The 1928A and 1928B have the same issue. good and fail units exist in both marking numbers.

Jimmy WANG said:

Also, I do not understand contact Lauterbach is for what? output log?

Hi Jimmy,

  I was suggesting to contact Lauterbach if their tool has a way to run a JTAG scan-chain test of the device. Will the fail units where you are unable to connect fail the JTAG scan test? Since Lauterbach is a 3rd party tool that I'm not familiar with, hence the question to contact the tool vendor. 

Jimmy WANG said:

good and fail units exist in both marking numbers

Thanks for the feedback. Earlier you gave me the below two lot numbers. You are saying that the good units also come from these two lot numbers. Is that a correct understanding? 

Lot No.

0000930MTT 

9009955MTT

Hi Charles,

Yes, good units also come from these two lots numbers.

So you want to prove contact Lauterbach is oaky or not?

Jimmy WANG said:

So you want to prove contact Lauterbach is oaky or not?

I'm not sure what you mean here. All I'm asking is if Lauterbach debugger has a way to perform a JTAG scan chain testing. If the customer does not know if this capability is available on the Lauterbach tool then they can check with Lauterbach tool vendor. If Lauterbach vendor says no such capability then that is fine. We just can't run such a test.  If the debugger tool has such capability then how to run it? I just want to know if the JTAG scan test can provide any debugging tips as far as your current issue. That is all I'm asking. 

Hi Charles,

I saw the same issue was discussed on the E2E forum. so it's the date code that causes the issue? 

e2e.ti.com/.../sm470r1b1m-ht-customer-has-some-issue-on-this-device-that-memory-security-locked-can-t-unlock

Hi Jimmy,

Jimmy WANG said:

I saw the same issue was discussed on the E2E forum. so it's the date code that causes the issue? 

e2e.ti.com/.../sm470r1b1m-ht-customer-has-some-issue-on-this-device-that-memory-security-locked-can-t-unlock

  The link you referred to (if you click the URL link) is the same as this current post. 

Hi Charles,

Sorry, correct link as below.

(+) SM470R1B1MKHPS Memory is locked, unable to program - Arm-based microcontrollers forum - Arm-based microcontrollers - TI E2E support forums

Hi Jimmy,

  Can you please submit a return request for analysis?

https://www.ti.com/productreturns/docs/createReturn.tsp

Hi Charles,

I have been submitting the return request. but TI CQE reject it. 

CPR231086571

Hi Jimmy,

  I cannot open the link. Can you show the link again?