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.


Part Number: TMDSEMU110-U
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: LP-XDS110ET, , UNIFLASH


I am debating which device is better to use in production line to program CC1311: TMDSEMU110-U or LP-XDS110ET. 

From the testing that I did it's looks that LP-XDS110ET is very sensitive for wires length and we are using programming jig in our production line that includes some wires and pogo pins. 

What is the difference between both devices?

From your experience which programmer more stable for noises and less sensitive to wire length?  


am using following signals for programming:



Thank you,

Alex Katsovich

  • Hi Alex,

    The devices have the same features, except for one difference. The TMDSEMU110E allows you to vary the supply voltage when you supply power from the debug probe to the device, while on the LP-XDS110ET it is fixed to 3.3 V. Another advantage of the TMDSEMU110E is it has an enclosure, so you may prefer using this one for a production environment.

    How long are the wires that you are using for programming?

  • Hi Diego,

    We are using a jig for programing the chip, so if I accumulated all internal and external wires/connections, it's will be around 20-25 cm. What's the limit?

    Until yesterday I used the UniFlash GUI application and now I started to work with CLI package (generated from UniFlash).

    As I saw GUI application is more sensitive to wires length instead of CLI. Looks that with the CLI its works better, I don't understand the reason. 


    Meantime I have only LP-XDS110ET debug probe.



  • Wire length shouldn't make the CLI work better than the GUI application. What exact issues are you seeing? Programming of the devices fails?

    If possible can you post images of the errors you are getting?