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.

TMS320F28388D: The problem of ERAD example project evaluation.

Part Number: TMS320F28388D
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: C2000WARE

Hi champs,

I am evaluating the C2000Ware ERAD example and below are my test conditions,

  • CCS v10.4.
  • CGT v21.6.0.LTS.
  • C2000Ware v4.03 example project erad_ex5_restricted_write_detect.

When I use RAM configuration to run that example project, everying gose well. However, when I use FLASH configuration and download that project, the code stops at the beginning of main() and I find that the ERAD owner is set to debugger automatically. The ERAD owner is debugger means that the example code cannot modify the ERAD regiseters, the code stops at below function when I hit Resume icon and run the software.

void __error__(const char *filename, uint32_t line)
{
    //
    // An ASSERT condition was evaluated as false. You can use the filename and
    // line parameters to determine what went wrong.
    //
    ESTOP0;
}

Then I try to execute that example project standalone, F28388D boot from flash and that software works well, I can test the function via Terminal. I guess that ERAD owner problem when I use CCS FLASH configuration is due to CCS debug function, do you know how to resolve this CCS debug problem?

Regards,

Luke

  • Luke,

    I am investigating this and will get back to you shortly.

    Ibukun

  • Hello Luke,

    I have tested this example with CCS 12.2 (latest release), and I do not see the behavior described. This could possibly be a difference in implementation in the 10.2 version. I recommend upgrading to the latest version of CCS and trying again.

    In any case, when the code grabs ownership of the ERAD, it is assuming exclusive ownership of the module and therefore is not expected to play nice with CCS. To share ERAD resources with the debugger, it may be better to use ERAD_OWNER_NOOWNER instead.

    Best regards,
    Ibukun