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.

SYSCONFIG: Why does MPU Setting Summary indicate conflict when 2 regions are beside each other?

Part Number: SYSCONFIG

Tool/software:

Using sysconfig from CCS 20.2.0.12.

CONFIG_MPU_OCRAM_R5F_1_0 is configured for 256KB(0x400000x) starting at address 0x70240000 on core 1_0.  Ending address is 0x7027FFFF.

Why does the "MPU Setting Summary" indicate there is an overlap to the OCRAM configured on core 1_1?  It's address is 0x70280000 and onwards?  This is not within the range of the CONFIG_MPU_OCRAM_R5F_1_0 MPU setting on core 1_0 and should not be listed in this table.

Regards.

  • Hello!
    We are looking into your query. Please allow us some time to respond.
    Thanks.

  • Hi Huey,

    The MPU config in core 1_0 is from 0x7024 0000 to 0x7027 FFFF. 

    The MPU config in core 1_1 is from 0x7028 0000 to 0x702F FFFF.

    The MPU config in core 1_1 is adjacent to the one in core 1_0. So there is no overlap right ?

    Regards,

    Aswin

  • Correct there is no overlap.   The issue in question is why MPU Setting Summary indicates there is an overlap.  Here CONFIG_MPU_OCRAM_R5f_1_0 shows that 2 Regions are within its range: OSRAM_R5F1_0 and OSRAM_R5F1_1.   I think it is not supposed to include R5F1_1 since it is outside it's memory range.  I'm highlighting that the tool may have some fencing issues here.

    Regards

  • Hi Huey,

    I understood the issue. It seems like since OCRAM_R5F1_1 is adjacent to the MPU the region CONFIG_MPU_OCRAM_R5f_1_0, the tools is incorrectly considering OCRAM_R5F1_1 to be a part of CONFIG_MPU_OCRAM_R5f_1_0.

    If I edit the address of OCRAM_R5F1_1 to be 0x7028 0001, then OCRAM_R5F1_1 does not come under OCRAM_R5F1_1.

    This is an issue in the MPU configuration summary rendering logic.

    In the helper.syscfg.js file @ source\sysconfig\memory_configurator\.meta\helper.syscfg.js, if we modify the condition as in line 59 then this issue will not come.

    Regards,

    Aswin

  • Hi Huey,

    I have raised a bug for the same. Here is the TI internal tracking link

    https://jira.itg.ti.com/browse/MCUSDK-14863

    Regards,

    Aswin