TMS320F280025: can't trigger ADC with CPU TIMER

Howard,

Please ensure you are following all the steps in the soc configuration sounds like you are missing a step. See Chapter 15.3 SOC Principle of Operation in SPRUIN7A I would also take a look at the ADC SOC example provided in C2000Ware. Do note there are more differentiated examples supported in driverlib.

Regards,

Ozino

Ozino,

we find that it's because we haven't set TCR.bit.TIE=1, which means that the interrupt is not enabled.

So is it true that we have to enable CPU timer interrupt to make it able to trigger ADC SOC for F280025?

But in F28035, it's not needed to set TIE=1.

Howard, 

Yes, please see more information on setting the TCR register in this forum post. https://e2e.ti.com/support/microcontrollers/c2000/f/c2000-microcontrollers-forum/995115/tms320f280049c-tms320f28004x-real-time-microcontrollers-technical-reference-manual-the-tcr-register/3679388#3679388

Regards,

Ozino

Ozino,

the link post is related to TIF, not TIE bit.

Our question is related to TIE bit, thanks.

If the behavior between F28002x and F2803x is different, then I suggest it be documented in the TRM.

Howard,

If you are using the CPU Timer to generate an interrupt, then yes you will need to set the TIE bit in the TCR register. It sounds like you have tried the same code on the F28035 and it worked. Is that correct? Did you write the code yourself or did you copy it from the C2000Ware example.

Regards,

Ozino

Ozino,

I write the code based on our example code in C2000WARE, and I can replicate the same phenomenon on our controlCARD.

in F28002x, we have to set TIE bit to make CPUTIMER trigger ADC.

in F2803x, we don't have to set TIE bit to make CPUTIMER trigger ADC.

Howard,

I'll forward this post to the Timers expert so they can comment on this discrepancy. Thanks. 

Regards, 

Ozino

Howard,

Sorry for the delay in replying to this post, it was accidentally marked as closed.  I've re-opened the thread.  It may be that the F2803x implementation, while simpler, was not intended and the signal should have been gated by the TIE bit as you see in the F28002x device. 

In any case, there is a difference in behavior that needs to be documented for clarity.  I'll work on filing a LITBUG for all effected devices.

Best,

Matthew

Matt,

so you mean that in F2803x, it was intended to be gated by TIE, but for some unknown reason it's not.

Then how about F2802x, F2806x, F2807x and F28004x?

Howard,

I'm not certain at the moment, I will need to check with design when this changed.  I would expect 2802x/2803x/2806x to all behave the same way.

Best,

Matthew