Other Parts Discussed in Thread: SYSCONFIG
Tool/software:
Hello,
Hello TI Team,
I'm trying to adapt the Motor Control SDK Universal Project and Lab to the LAUNCHXL-F280049C, for this I'm following the following guide: Universal Motor Control Project and Lab User’s Guide (Rev. A).
Due to my previous post LAUNCHXL-F280049C: Adapting the Motor Control SDK Universal Project and Lab (sysconfig version) to the LAUNCHXL-F280049C - C2000 microcontrollers forum - C2000
︎ microcontrollers - TI E2E support forums, I decided to go with the non sysconfig version, and simply using the tool as a validation tool.
I'm using the following HW:
- Encoder: Absolute angle through SPI;
- Smart Gate Driver - DRV8353S.
- ADC Feedback (4 channels):
- 3 currents (Ia, Ib, Ic);
- 1 Voltage (Vdc)
I managed to get the Smart Gate Driver going, still working on the encoder. But this should go smoothly as I can have a dedicated SPI bus for each HW part. Given this, I decided to follow the following strategy: QEP encoder based sensored-FOC (Table 3-1) (obviously I need to get rid of the QEP module, and implement encoder functionality through SPI).
Notice how the number of voltage phase sensors present in the hardware is 0. This was a design choice, I have to work with it. When changing the USER_M1_NUM_VOLTAGE_SENSORS to 0. I get a compilation error, which is expected when reading the description of the parameter. My question to you is the following: Does this prevent me from using this example given the HW? My initial analysis when reading through the document is a sensored solution without voltage feedback of the phase voltage would have been possible when using this example, by simply not using the FAST Libraries. (I also get a compilation error when removing the FAST symbols from the compiler).
The development time so far won't go to waste as a lot the initialization and configuration has been achieved, but I need to know ASAP if it is feasible to keep using this example, or if I should follow a different strategy.
Thanks,
Martin Blocher
