• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 991 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.

TM4C1294NCPDT: USB2UART

CK54
Prodigy 30 points

Part Number: TM4C1294NCPDT
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TM4C123GH6PM

I want to implement an USB to UART communication separately using TM4C1294NCPDT uC. How to establish the conversion from USB to UART? Which would be better, TM4C123GH6PM or TM4C1294NCPDT?

  • 0
    Guru 117855 points

    CK54 said:
    I want to implement an USB to UART communication (separately) using (TM4C129 or 123 uC.)   How to establish the conversion from USB to UART?    Which would be better?

    Your "intent" - presented by the word "separately" (above) - may prove key.

    Should such "USB to UART communication" be your (singular) or main goal - might you consider an "FTDI" (or other) "USB to UART Converter" - w/all electronics - embedded w/in the cable?    

    Such altered choice proves MAJOR, "Time, Effort, Pcb Development Cost SAVING" - while (likely) providing improved performance.     In addition - this suggested, "Vastly Eased & FAR more Generalized Solution" - may be exploited (likely re-used) by (many) other of your projects - even w/ other MCUs!      

    Sometimes the "Solution Matrix" - as (early) presented - warrants expansion and/or re-think...

  • 0 in reply to cb1_mobile
    Prodigy 30 points
    Implementing USB to UART isn't my sole purpose and the application is not general purpose. I thought about using FT232R and I still can go with that but I wanted to know how TI ppl have done it.
  • 0 in reply to CK54
    Guru 117855 points

    CK54 said:
    Implementing USB to UART isn't my sole purpose

    As earlier noted - such was not made clear w/in your initial posting.

    You may employ this forum's "Search function" (atop this page) - keyword "USB" - and many results should arrive.

    The advantages of the "More General Solution" (as earlier proposed) are major & many.    

    Locking yourself in - to just one device - from one vendor - at ADDED: "Size, Cost, Time, Effort" - may not always prove ideal...

  • 0 in reply to cb1_mobile
    TI__Guru**** 191886 points
    Hi cb1,
    Thanks for the suggestions. I think the poster may be looking for USB Virtual COM port using the CDC class. If this is the case, then the poster can refer to the example in <TivaWare_Installation>\examples\boards\ek-tm4c129xl\usb_dev_cserial.
  • 0 in reply to Charles Tsai
    Guru 117855 points

    Indeed he can - Charles - indeed he can. Yet - that requires, "Time, Effort, pcb development" - and proves "Re-Usable" (only) for that MCU - and that board.

    How often are you - and vendor others - called to "rescue" those attempting such?     In fact - are you not today, "Assisting a user - w/just such "TM4C USB2UART issue?"     (The "dedicated USB<->UART chip" - as noted by this 2nd poster - "works flawlessly at 3MBaud!")      Why in the world would one, "Move from such performance - achieved near instantly - and w/great EASE?"

    The "pain & effort-free + quick" approach alternative - again - offers MAJOR & MANY ADVANTAGES.    (all earlier listed - and it simply WORKS - important - is it not?)
    Does not poster's (unnecessary) diversion from his (other) MCU tasks delay & possibly even compromise those?

    Is not the, "Much Better (even) Proper Time" for such, "Expansion of the MCU's role" -  far later - AFTER poster's "design mission" is accomplished?

    Re-Inventing a readily available,  "highly successful wheel" - while "inviting in elements of  RISK" (somehow) seems without great (great to be kind) merit...

  • 0 in reply to cb1_mobile
    Prodigy 30 points
    Thanks cb1 and Charles Tsai,

    I think I will go with FTDI chip for the application as TI has also used their own tm4c123gh6pm in place of a FTDI which serves the same purpose. But as I have to design a board for a specific purpose, it can't be used as a general purpose board. If I could, I would go for the general purpose alternate.
  • 0 in reply to CK54
    Guru 117855 points

    Thank you - as the other poster here had clearly noted, "Superior Performance, far less time/effort demanded - surely warrants your consideration.       And - importantly - the alternate (Designed to Purpose IC) method proves "Re-Usable" - across many MCUs - long into the future."    (you may "graduate" to Cortex M0, M0+, M3, M7 & M4 - all supported by this higher performing, general solution)

    Downstream - after you've met your design objectives - you may consider the time/effort investment to eliminate the "higher performing - purpose-built device."     (which some believe makes NO Sense - unless your volume proves huge - and you can "live" w/ slowed data rate.)