• State
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 109 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

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.

MSPM0G3218-Q1: MSPM0G3218: Period of Timer Basic is small when using default BUSCLOCK

Hoc Nguyen
Prodigy 70 points

Part Number: MSPM0G3218-Q1

Dear TI Expert,

I am currently using Timer Basic (TIMB0) Counter 0 for timeout monitoring. However, I am facing an issue when selecting BUSCLOCK (32 MHz) as the source clock for TIMB0 Counter 0.

With BUSCLOCK selected, the maximum achievable period is quite limited—only about 2.04 ms, and the resolution is also relatively coarse. For our application, we require a timeout of up to 10 ms. Unfortunately, it seems that there is no option to further divide the clock to obtain a lower clock frequency.
image.png

Is there any way to achieve the required timeout period with this timer, or is there an alternative configuration or solution you would recommend?

Thank you for your support.

Best regards,
Hoc

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 31325 points

    Hi Hoc,

    I checked the TRM and TIMB has no clock divider inside the IP

    So, users should use the 32MHz Bus clock.

    Hoc Nguyen said:
    Is there any way to achieve the required timeout period with this timer, or is there an alternative configuration or solution you would recommend?

    While, we can use counter0 to work with busclock (32MHz) and set its overflow to counter1, then you have a 32-bit timer which should be sufficient for your application.

    B.R.

    Sal