• State
  • Replies 2 replies
  • Subscribers 82 subscribers
  • Views 35 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

TMS320F28379D: Diagnostic library

Marvn Arcangel
Genius 15400 points

Part Number: TMS320F28379D
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: C2000WARE, C2000-SAFETI-DIAGNOSTICS-LIB

Hi Experts,

The SPRACB9 application report mentions "Diagnostic Library". 

I searched the site and I found C2000-SAFETI-DIAGNOSTICS-LIB. However, this corresponds to an older C2000Ware version (around v1.00.01.00). Do we have a version that corresponds to the latest C2000Ware?

Could you please clarify whether this Diagnostic Library is still actively maintained and validated
for use with the latest C2000Ware versions? I am concerned that the older version may contain
potential issues or incompatibilities.

In particular, I observed a difference in the HWBIST handling between devices. For example, in
some devices (such as F2837x), the HWBIST flow does not explicitly disable Timer1 and Timer2
interrupts, while in others (such as F28002x), these interrupts appear to be handled differently.

Thanks!

Marvin

  • 0
    TI__Guru* 76006 points

    Hi Marvin,

    Apologies for the delayed response:

    The C2000-SAFETI-DIAGNOSTICS-LIB you found is indeed an older version that was packaged separately from C2000Ware. In more recent releases, the Diagnostic Library has been integrated directly into C2000Ware as part of the standard package.

    The Diagnostic Library is still actively maintained and validated for use with the latest C2000Ware versions. It's now included within C2000Ware rather than being distributed as a separate download.

    Refer below path:

    --
    Thanks & regards,
    Jagadish.

  • 0 in reply to jagadish gundavarapu
    TI__Genius 15400 points

    Hi Jagadish,

    Thank you.

    I have a follow-up question regarding HWBIST.

    I understand that HWBIST supports two types of tests: STL_HWBIST_99_SAF and STL_HWBIST_95_LOS. During my testing, I observed the following behavior:
    • For STL_HWBIST_95_LOS, the function STL_HWBIST_runMicroTest() was called approximately 1700 times before bistDone was set to 1.
    • For STL_HWBIST_99_SAF, the same function was called only about 300 times before bistDone was set to 1.

    Based on my understanding, achieving a 99% fault coverage should require more extensive testing than 95%. Therefore, I am concerned that performing only around 300 micro test iterations may not be sufficient to reach 99% coverage.

    Could you please help clarify:
    1.Why the number of micro test iterations is significantly lower for STL_HWBIST_99_SAF compared to STL_HWBIST_95_LOS?
    2.How the 99% coverage is ensured with this number of iterations?