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.

TM4C1292NCPDT: 07/17/2017

Part Number: TM4C1292NCPDT

Hi,

I have to do my program like after every reset the execution of image have to be switched according to the value of the variable stored in flash. For that I increment the variable in my program and write to flash. After every reset this variable has to be read from flash. For storing the variable in flash address 0x080000 and then to read the variable, I did as shown in the snapshot below. But it is not working. Please help to do my program in the right way.

Regards

Sandra

  • Sandra,

    1. Help us help you by using a subject line that means something. The date is not meaningful. You've been corrected on this multiple times and you've agreed it was wrong.
    2. Don't past you code as an image use the past code option </>

    Since you didn't post your code properly I cannot quote the lines in question but

    The FlashProgram line in main is almost certainly wrong in concept. Do you really want to write to address 3? It certainly violates the documented alignment constraint that all address and sizes must be divisible by four.

    There's a very good chance that the programming line in wrotePermanentsToFlash is also wrong but you don't reveal what state is so it's hard to tell.

    Finally you need to re-read the documentation, the first argument to FlashProgram is not the storage location.

    Robert

  • As "friend Sandra" is (alone) in "gifting us w/the (unwanted/unnecessary) DATE" - is it not likely that, "She's doing something "special" to so repetitively produce the same (nonsensical) Subject Line "bloat?"

    Yet - even after (multiple) corrections - and her acknowledgement of "mistake" - the issue continues.

    May we note that (even) vendor intervention - upon another DATED Sandra posting - has failed to inspire the release of "corrective actions!"
    If so simple a mistake cannot (or will not) be corrected (even lessened) - what confidence exists that, "following simple diagnostic guides will be absorbed and deployed?"

    Firm/I were "of the opinion" that vendor intervention was NOT well chosen - directness (as you here exhibit) IS surely required. I'd leave these uniquely "DATED" posts to "blow here in the wind" until this issue is properly addressed. Might the "accidental" nature of such repetition - (now) come into strong question?
  • Hi,

    Extremely regret for the mistake I have committed again. While selecting date, month was chosen first, so the mistake happened. Sorry.

    Regarding the issue I had posted, the problem is solved.

    Regards

    Sandra

  • Glad that your "problem is solved."     Yet - no one here holds "high confidence" that another "Sandra post" will, "Avoid the DATE" and just maybe - "communicate her ACTUAL TOPIC!"     (so important as readers may then properly decide if they  have the interest & experience to assist you! )

    You remain "ALONE" in this "DATE ONLY obsession."     Do note that you may EDIT the Subject Line - and simple experimentation will reveal, "Why & How" you've "Locked into "DATE and ONLY DATE!"   (which proves absolutely useless in communicating your critical, "help desire.")

  • Hi Sandra,

     I'm not too sure where either the date or month was asked when creating posts. Did you somehow enter 07/17/2017 as the field for E2E thread title?

  • sandra george78 said:
    While selecting date, month was chosen first, so the mistake happened

    That's not the problem. The problem is you are using the date as a subject line.

    Robert

  • Robert: "you are using the date as a subject line."

    Yet - such proves "superior" to using the subject as a date line...

    Charles - the "potential" for the Part Number to (unwantedly) INVADE the Subject Line has proven HIGH!      (almost as retarded as "date" is (clarifying) Subject Line: "TM4Cxyz: TM4Cxyz"    (seen here repeatedly - disturbingly!))

    Further - placing the Post's Thread Title - so far down (the very bottom) may cause posters to "miss it" - or due to "exhaustion" - fail to provide a properly considered "Description of their request!"

    This post prompting system appears to require further consideration...   (in light of repeated mis-steps - by many...)