• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 29 subscribers
  • Views 232 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.

LAUNCHXL2-570LC43: Question about ESMSR4's reserved bit definition

Peter Chan
Prodigy 110 points
Part Number: LAUNCHXL2-570LC43

I have seen the ESMSR4 register returning a value of 0x8000.  This translates to an ESM 1.63 (group 1 channel 63) value.  Looking at the ESM definition in table 6.45 of the SPNS195C, the ESM 1.63 is a "reserved" bit.  Is this bit defined elsewhere?  On a separate note, is there a document that has more details on the ESM bits?

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 49120 points

    All our documentation shows this bit to be "reserved". I will have to check with the design team on what error signal, if any, is wired to ESM group 1, channel 63.

    It will take another day to get the answer. Thank you for your patience.

  • 0 in reply to Sunil Oak
    TI__Mastermind 49120 points

    ESM group1 channel 63 is indeed tied-off to a zero and must not read as set in any circumstances.

    Can you please confirm the register address and content? You can confirm by opening a memory window and view the ESM registers in the memory window.

  • 0 in reply to Sunil Oak
    Prodigy 110 points

    Hi Sunil,

    The data was captured some time ago from some tests we conducted.  Software was just periodically storing various ESM registers.  We used a structure to access these registers.  I went back and double-checked SR4[0] was accessed and saved.  The other registers such as ESMSR1, ESMSR2, etc are working correctly so I'm unsure why ESMSR4 would behave differently.  From the data I have, the 0x8000 shown up in a few tests and would get cleared on reboot.  It could be something unique to the board/chip we were using.  I will continue to monitor to see if this shows up in future tests.  The fact that you verified with your team and found this bit is tied to zero is what I needed to know.  

    Appreciate the support.

    Regards,