• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 1032 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.

SW-EK-TM4C1294XL: Tivaware example programs for new booster packs?

Markel Robregado
Guru 86755 points
Part Number: SW-EK-TM4C1294XL
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CC1310, CC3220S, CC3220SF, MSP-EXP430F5529LP

Hi,

   I am just curious to know why there are no Tivaware Example Programs for new Booster Packs. Example of the new booster pack is the BOOSTXL-BASSENSORS. If I want to use this booster pack to my Tiva Connected Launchpad I would need to port the example program from any of the MCU SDK's below.

CC1310_LAUNCHXL
CC2640R2_LAUNCHXL
CC3220S_LAUNCHXL
CC3220SF_LAUNCHXL
MSP_EXP432E401Y
MSP_EXP432P401R

-kel

  • 0
    TI__Guru*** 135355 points
    Hello Markel,

    Whether TM4C would support a BoosterPack is not determined by our team, but by those who make the BoosterPack. From a hardware standpoint, all BoosterPack's that follow the standard are compatible with TM4C but as far as example code goes, it is up to those who make the BoosterPack to decide what LaunchPad's are supported.

    While we do have some BoosterPack's supported in TivaWare, as far as my knowledge goes, all of those were collab projects where the teams in charge of those BoosterPacks worked with TM4C apps to have an example added to TivaWare. And even those projects aren't always perfect examples as the NFC BoosterPack uses very outdated code - something I can personally attest to due to being one of the developers of our NFC stack.

    So really the query about lack of TM4C support needs to be directed to the teams who make the BoosterPack as they determine what LaunchPad's are supported. It sounds like for that particular BoosterPack, they opted to make it compatible with SimpleLink SDK, which means all the LaunchPad's you listed are compatible with it. I see other popular and widely used LaunchPad's like the MSP-EXP430F5529LP are not listed which makes me think they simply decided to add it to SimpleLink SDK only.
  • 0 in reply to Ralph Jacobi
    Guru 117855 points

    Note: (I clicked upon Markel's post - this writing is aimed toward Markel & his readers...)

    Along w/Vendor Ralph's broad & deep-dive into 'BoosterPack' modus operandi - is it not (highly) predictable that - far & away - the interface between MCU and 'BoosterPack' is confined to: I2C, SPI, or UART?

    And - as these interconnects - both hardware & software - are (rather) well illustrated w/in 'multiple' of the (past) BoosterPack code examples - does this not (greatly) 'Speed, Ease & Enhance' your quest for (any) example code? It is noted - as well - that you have (already) identified those key (past) SDKs - thus the (added) effort proves ... (minimal) - does it not?

  • 0 in reply to cb1_mobile
    Guru 86755 points
    Thanks for both Ralph and cb1 replies.

    With the TI Launchpad and Booster Pack plus the example programs, you can make project or product prototypes in a short period of time. This is enough to provide "Proof Of Concept" and a demo that you can show to your boss or team.

    While other TI MCU's SDK's have example programs for new Booster Packs., the Tivaware does not have. So, TI customers can not make project or product prototypes in a short period of time using the TM4C Launchpad and new TI Booster Packs.

    These new Booster Packs are made by TI, and TI customers most likely wants Tivaware example programs for these new Booster Packs. There is a saying that "customer is always right", but that is for stores and restaurants. I do not know if the same applies in this situation.

    I am a fairly experienced engineer and it will take me several days to make code libraries for these new TI Booster Packs. How about for students who want to try out these TI Booster Packs using TM4C Launchpad.

    I am just voicing out my opinion on this. I hope TI considers making Tivaware example programs for these new TI Booster Packs.

    -kel
  • 0 in reply to Markel Robregado
    TI__Guru*** 135355 points
    Hello Markel,

    I appreciate your feedback, and it's something I can bring up with the team to discuss how to engage groups who make BoosterPacks to consider TM4C as well, but as long as groups are also leaving out widely used MSP430 LaunchPad's as well, chances are Tiva wasn't 'forgotten' but rather they targeted SimpleLink because it bridges across half a dozen LaunchPad's with just one development effort...

    Also I certainly think you are right, but ultimately the decision to support TM4C for new BoosterPack's doesn't fall on those of us who support E2E, so all I can do is try to see if I can influence other groups to spend that effort so they can attract a larger number of users to their BoosterPack.
  • 0 in reply to Ralph Jacobi
    Guru 117855 points

    May I offer an 'opposing view?'     (this post - directed to (both) o.p. & vendor's Ralph.)

    Are the booster-packs destined to be 'ONLY' for those (always) rushed - 'concept provers' - who devote the 'bare minimum' of: Time, Effort, and Focused thought?     (So much OTHER CHALLENGE - captures their time/attention - is THAT the claim?)

    Perhaps wise to (really) address these points:

    • How and where does, 'Understanding' enter this equation?    
    • Beyond understanding - what about 'Mastery' - which enables the 'relative ease' - which the 'Booster-Pack INTERCONNECT Proposition' delivers?    
    • Are not the vast majority of signals - between MCU and booster pack (already) properly routed?
    • Does not the 'simple checking' - so that signal conflicts ARE avoided - offer great (and ongoing)  teaching moments/learning benefits?     Are these to be discarded?
    • As stated earlier - do not THREE Interfaces - satisfy (almost) ALL needs of such booster packs?     
    • And - as noted here - what happens when the, 'RUSH to Assemble' yields FAILURE?    What then?   Minus the NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE GAINED - by a 'PROPER' Board to Board Analysis - have we not created a band of, 'APPLIANCE OPERATORS - ONLY?'

    Might there be a (both) 'proper & fine' LINE - to be drawn between 'Facilitating USE' and o.p.'s request - for (pardon) extreme 'Hand Holding?'    

    Would (anyone - anywhere) hire a 'hand-holder' - even if - and ESPECIALLY if - the 'concept was proven?'      Real PROOF demands REAL UNDERSTANDING - does it not?