MSP430G2744: The values ​​0x10F0-0x10FF in Segment A become 0xFF (Blank).

Hi O.H,

The area that you are trying to modify in the information memory area. Normally, this area should be left alone unless there's a good understanding of how to modify the values here.

1. I haven't heard of something happening to our devices. The only instance I can think of this happening is if, for some reason, the device was damaged
2. Similar to the answer above, if the device is damaged, the behavior will be abnormal. Personally, however, I haven't heard of such a case before.
3. Heat could be a cause for the device to be damaged, especially if it surpasses the recommended operating temperatures. However, heat normally doesn't cause data in FLASH to change (unless it was a FRAM device since FRAM is sensitive to heat.)

Best Regards,

Diego Abad 

Hi Diego Abad

Thank you for your supports.

Diego Abad Sajamin said:

1. I haven't heard of something happening to our devices. The only instance I can think of this happening is if, for some reason, the device was damaged
2. Similar to the answer above, if the device is damaged, the behavior will be abnormal. Personally, however, I haven't heard of such a case before.
3. Heat could be a cause for the device to be damaged, especially if it surpasses the recommended operating temperatures. However, heat normally doesn't cause data in FLASH to change (unless it was a FRAM device since FRAM is sensitive to heat.)

Based on the answer above, it seems unlikely that the failure is due to a hardware issue.

My statement may have been a little misleading, so I'd like to provide the following additional information.

• The error log when the writing failed is below.
  "DCO constants verlifiacation... failed
• The IC that failed to be programmed was taken from the reel and installed.
• 220 ICs on the reel have been installed, and the data for the remaining 30 ICs was confirmed using Uniflash.
• There is no content in the firmware that manipulates 0x10F0-0x10FF.

Q4: Even with the above information, do you still think the possibility of a hardware-related failure is extremely low?

Q5: Have there been any reports of bugs with the "FET-Pro430"?

Q6: Could you tell me how the problem in the original thread was resolved? I don't mind answering in private chat.

Best regards,
O.H

Hi O.H.,
Q4. Actually, I think the opposite. There might be a posibility that what the device showing the issue could have been damaged, though I'm not sure exactly how it could have damage.

Q5. I haven't heard of any in particular, nor I can't find any previous instances in E2E that may relate to it. However, I would recommend browsing in E2E just in case I missed something.

Q6. Most likely what happened in the original thread is that it automatically got closed after some time. However, I would recommend the same as the original thread on regards of comparing the sections between a good and a bad unit. 

Best Regards,

Diego Abad

Hi Diego Abad,

Thank you for your reply. I understood.

Diego Abad Sajamin said:

Q6. Most likely what happened in the original thread is that it automatically got closed after some time. However, I would recommend the same as the original thread on regards of comparing the sections between a good and a bad unit. 

When comparing the units in their implemented state, the defective unit has blank areas, while the good units have no blank areas.
Since only good units were found in the unimplemented state, we are currently checking whether any defects will occur after implementation.
We will consult with you again depending on the results.

Best regards,
O.H

Hi O.H.,

Sounds good. Let me know if you need further help. Depending of the nature of the question, I may recommend to open a new E2E thread.

Best Regards,

Diego Abad

Hi Diego Abad,

Diego Abad Sajamin said:

Q4. Actually, I think the opposite. There might be a posibility that what the device showing the issue could have been damaged, though I'm not sure exactly how it could have damage.

Additional question. We understand that the above "could have been damaged" means "physical abnormality," but if the damage is to the circuitry inside the CPU package, We think that even writing the recovery patch ("msp430g2x44_dco_flashcal.c.") would not restore the system.
Could you please tell me what kind of phenomenon you are referring to when you say "could have been damaged"?

Additional information.
The customer checked the source code, but said that LOCKA was not being accessed.

Best regards,
O.H

Hi O.H.,
I meant physical damage to the device. Something like the device being exposed to higher currents or voltages that it cannot handle, which leads to internal damage to different parts of the device (including the FLASH or RAM).  It is correct assume that a recovery patch will not work in restoring the MCU to its original functionality if physical damage to the device has occurred. If the LOCKA is not being activated, then that's good since in theory a mass erase will be able to erase the contents in FLASH. 

Best Regards,

Diego Abad

Hi Diego Abad,

Thank you for your reply.

Diego Abad Sajamin said:

I meant physical damage to the device. Something like the device being exposed to higher currents or voltages that it cannot handle, which leads to internal damage to different parts of the device (including the FLASH or RAM).  It is correct assume that a recovery patch will not work in restoring the MCU to its original functionality if physical damage to the device has occurred. If the LOCKA is not being activated, then that's good since in theory a mass erase will be able to erase the contents in FLASH. 

In this case, we have confirmed that the device operates normally with the recovery patch. So, is the following understanding correct?
This is a conclusion based on the assumption that physical damage occurred.

"The internal flash temporarily failed due to a current or voltage higher than the device could handle. In this case, a temporary failure means that data has been lost (become 0xFF). However, it is not a permanent failure and data can still be rewritten. Due to the fact that it temporarily failed, you cannot guarantee that the device will function as a normal product."

Best regards,
O.H

Hi O.H.,
That sounds about right. If the device functions as intended after a recovery fix, then there may not be permanent damage to the device. However, since the device appeared to be corrupted due to an external factor, its lifetime is most likely reduced.
Best Regards,
Diego Abad

Hi Diego Abad,

Thank you for your reply. I understood.

I'll share any additional questions or information I have.

Best regards,
O.H