• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 82 subscribers
  • Views 389 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.

TMS320F280049C: ICE60730

Anka Zhang
Intellectual 2215 points
Part Number: TMS320F280049C
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: C2000WARE

Hi expert,

I need an ICE60730 self-test library for F280049C and F2800137, is there a recommended library?

  • 0
    TI__Guru 54225 points

    There is a diagnostic library in C2000Ware that can help with some IEC 60730 measures. You can look for it in <C2000Ware install location>/libraries/diagnostic.

    There's also this app note that can help customers map the standard to the device safety manual diagnostic list.

    Whitney

  • 0 in reply to Whitney Dewey
    TI__Intellectual 2215 points

    Hi Whitney,

    Thanks for your support!

    in the:

    ti\C2000MCU_IEC60730\C2000MCU_IEC60730_4_00_01_00\IEC60730_STL_Library_v4_00_01_00\IEC60730_STL_Library_v4_00_01_00\IEC60730_safety\v4_00_01_00\source\c28x\STL_spc_detect.c

    Where is the _STACK_END (as shown in the diagram) defined and modified?

    Is the STL_SPC_DETECT_WPR1_REF_LOW of line 67 misspelled to the point of repeating the definition of line 70? Should it be changed to STL_SPC_DETECT_WPR1_MASK_LOW？

    Best Regards

    Anka Zhang

  • 0 in reply to Anka Zhang
    TI__Guru 54225 points
    Anka Zhang said:
    Where is the _STACK_END (as shown in the diagram) defined and modified?

    The linker generates that symbol based on how the user has configured their .stack section. See the assembly language tools guide.

    Anka Zhang said:
    Is the STL_SPC_DETECT_WPR1_REF_LOW of line 67 misspelled to the point of repeating the definition of line 70? Should it be changed to STL_SPC_DETECT_WPR1_MASK_LOW？

    I agree, it does look like it should be MASK_LOW instead of REF_LOW. I'll file a bug.

    Whitney