• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 2 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 84 subscribers
  • Views 407 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.

TMS320F28374D: Questions about C2000 Series

Jan Bock
Expert 3370 points
Part Number: TMS320F28374D
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TMS320F28388D

Hi, 

My customer has several questions to the C2000 TMS320F2837xD series for use in avionics: 

  1. [SAFETY] less safety mechanisms, when compared with Hercules or other options from different vendors. For example, the CPUs are not in lockstep. Why is this the case, and how can we compensate using available safety features?
  2. [MEMORY] maximum 1 MB of flash, which is quite small. Using the same comparisons mentioned above, we usually find 4 MB. Why is the flash this little? Will customers typically need to use external flash for advanced applications?
  3. [DEVELOPMENT] no program or data tracing possible. This is a feature we usually expect, why was it deemed not necessary for these MCUs?
  4. [CONNECTIVITY] we have a system requirement to support two redundant and dissimilar CAN buses. One should be conformant to CAN 2.0, the other one to a CAN FD spec. There is no CAN FD controller in these MCUs, and of course one option would be place an external one. However, in case the required dissimilarity was only at the physical layer (different signaling on the bus, but the same bitrate and message format as in CAN 2.0), could we just use an internal CAN 2.0 controller, with an external CAN FD transceiver? Would this work, technically speaking?
  5. [CERTIFICATION] is there any other avionics project worldwide that uses these MCUs? Because civil aviation authorities will likely give us a harder time, if we propose the use of devices that are new and unknown for airborne systems.

(*) We also know about the newer TMS320F2838xD. The major addition I see there is the additional connectivity manager core. But multi-core solutions are very challenging to certify in avionics, so our idea is to use only one C28x + CLA. Additionally, these ones are newer, and for us it is usually better to go with more proven devices

Can you please help?

Best regards,

Jan

  • 0
    Prodigy 10 points

    Thank you ,

    It is a bunch of questions I know, and I understand avionics applications are not the primary focus of C2000. Nevertheless, any comment to my points would be highly appreciated for better orientation.

    Thanks in advance to TI support team for any contribution.

    Luca

  • 0
    TI__Guru** 119670 points

    Hello Jan

    1. The applications that we primarily build C2000d devices for do not require lock-step operation.  Many of the most challenging safety standards (ASIL-D, SIL3) that we spend our time on can be solved at the system level with ASIL-C and ASIL-B components.  Different ways to solve the same problem.

    2. Again, for our application areas <2MB is the best fit for us. Larger flash is typically reserved for automotive engine control and processors with large OS and host type control. We focus in C2000 on real-time control portions of an application.

    3. We offer real-time data exchange, ERAD, and datalogging through peripherals (ex: USB, Ethernet).  This fits our key markets.

    4. CAN-FD (and CAN2.0) is available on TMS320F28388D series devices. I can't speak to your question on physical layer for your standard.

    5. There are many avionics projects using C2000 devices, but we are not experts on avionics, especially the safety standards.  For safety we focus on automotive ISO26262, industrial IEC61508, and appliance IEC60730