• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 83 subscribers
  • Views 704 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.

Problem with Invalid ROM version

Brant Zheng
Intellectual 415 points
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: MOTORWARE

Hello InstaSPIN community,

 

We have been using DRV8301-HC-EVM and F28069M ISO controlCARD. We spent time running InstaSPIN Projects and finished all labs with my ACIM. Finally we have designed our board.

 

When we test our board and run the labs of InstaSPIN-FOC, the ACIM runs well. But when we run the lab05c-the first lab of InstaSPIN-MOTION, there is a problem that ERR_ID shows 4001. And the board cannot work anymore.

 

We suspect that this may be caused by the Invalid ROM version of TMS320f28069MPZT which was bought online. To verify our conjecture, we take the DSP chip removed from F28069M ISO controlCARD and soldered it on our PCB board. Everything goes well.

 

Now we wondered how to deal with these chips of TMS320f28069MPZT we bought before. Should we return them back to retailer? If so, what kind of TMS320f28069MPZT is right to buy?

  • 0
    TI__Guru** 119590 points

    Brant,

    I'm sorry about this, but you are exactly correct, you have a 69M device that has had its part ID programmed as a 69F device. So when SpinTAC functions are called the software in ROM checks the part ID - thinks it is an F device - and returns an error.  There were a few thousand devices manufactured between February and July which this happened to. 

    We fixed the root cause so it can not happen again.

    We notified our distributors of the issue, but they often don't notify the end customer....especially if they just purchased a few units.

    You need to completely replace these units, and they can be done so for free. Just contact your distributor. We have stock of good TMS320F28069MPZT

    So you can confirm, there is a date code on the package of each device. Avoid any 69M devices which have a date code of 42 through 47 (2014-02 through 2014-07).

  • 0 in reply to ChrisClearman
    Intellectual 415 points

    Hello Chris,

     

    Thank you for your information!

     

    The chips which we bought before indeed have a data code of 42. And we are communicating with our distributor for exchange.

     

    By the way, for the consideration of costs and compatibility, we want to use TMS320F28068MPZT to replace TMS320F28069MPZT. We check the datasheet and find the difference of them is that TMS320F28069MPZT has Control Law Accelerator(CLA) but TMS320F28068MPZT doesn’t.

     

    Our application is driving an ACIM to make a position control and speed control. So if we take the  28068M devices to replace 28069M devices, is it suitable or can this make any bad effects?

     

    Hoping for your opinion. Thank you!

     

    Brant Zheng.  

  • 0 in reply to Brant Zheng
    TI__Guru** 119590 points

    no issue to use 68M instead of 69M. None of the MotorWare software uses the CLA.

    I will say that at least short-term, it will be easier to get the 69M version of the silicon. This is the one we always keep in stock. for the 68M you will need to place orders and deal with standard lead-times.