• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 8 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 80 subscribers
  • Views 4712 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

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.

Any MSP430 series without ERRATA

SRIHK
Intellectual 975 points
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: MSP430F2274, MSP430F5500, MSP430F5510, MSP430F5513, MSP430F5522, MSP430F5521, MSP430F5505, MSP430F5504, MSP430F5507, MSP430F5506, MSP430F5501, MSP430F5503, MSP430F5502, MSP430F5509, MSP430F5508, MSP430F5517, TAS3103A, TAS3103

Hi

    is there  any MSP430 1xx,2xx,3xx,4xx,5xx without any errata till date bcoz I am getting many problems on MSP430F2274 with I2C protocol using USCI_B0 module

   plz help me anyone

  • 0
    Guru 58965 points

    MSP430F5500, 01, 02, etc. do not have Errata (yet).But I do not think that is what you are asking.

    I am happy if the errata covers all the bugs and they can be avoided or worked around. Undisclosed or unknown bugs are the worst.

  • 0
    TI__Expert 7845 points

    If this is in reference to this post:
    http://community.ti.com/forums/t/7932.aspx

    then, some suggestions are posted there :)

  • 0 in reply to old_cow_yellow
    Intellectual 975 points

    yes I mean that any MSP series or any particluar MSPnumber that dosent have any errata

  • 0 in reply to SRIHK
    Guru 58965 points

    I do not understand why you want that.

    As far as I know, there is no errata for the following members yet.

    MSP430F5500, MSP430F5501, MSP430F5502, MSP430F5503, MSP430F5504, MSP430F5505, MSP430F5506, MSP430F5507, MSP430F5508, MSP430F5509, MSP430F5510, MSP430F5513, MSP430F5516, MSP430F5517, MSP430F5521, MSP430F5522, MSP430F5523

  • 0 in reply to old_cow_yellow
    Expert 1710 points

    I believe he probably wants to find devices for which there are no substantial existing errors i.e. no known or unknown errata that apply.  As others have said, the errata which are known and documented are often better than the ones which are unknown or which are as yet undocumented.  Many chips have errors of some kinds in a particular revision of their silicon.  Hopefully those errors are not so prevalent or serious that they greatly compromise their ease of use and functionality.

    I gather that some of the latest / emerging generations of MSP chips have some rather problematic errata present in their current revisions, but I believe that many of the serious problems have been identified and will presumably be corrected within a new revision of their silicon within the next several weeks.

    I know that for some of the chips revisions the errors have existed for as long as the revisions have existed, however the errata documents describing the errors have only recently been updated / published, and for other chips the publication / error identification may simply not yet have occurred.

    You can't really look for a chip model number without errors, you have to look at each revision of that chip to see what errors affect that specific revision; sometimes old errors are corrected, sometimes new errors appear.

    I suppose the most trustworthy chip is one that has had several previously published errata, several past revisions, a large satisfied user base, and the status of having few serious anecdotally reported or previously documented problems of any kind.

    Be careful assuming that the lack of a published errata document means the actual lack of problems with the chip for any chip that is only recently introduced.

     

  • 0 in reply to old_cow_yellow
    Intellectual 975 points

    HI,

           I am need of implementing a project so I wanna know (  I do not understand why you want that.)   any device without error becoz IM STRUCK AT A PARTICULAR PROBLEM IN USCI_B0 FOR I2C PROTOCOL AND I WASTED ALMOST 2 MONTHS BECAUSE iM NOT GETTING ANY SUPPORT AS IM USING MSP430F2274 AND THE DOCUMENTATION IS VERY POOR SO I WANNNA KNOW BEFORE PROCCEDING

    AND IF U WANNA REALLY UNDERSTAND THIS TRY READING USCI_B0 MODULE FOR I2C PARTICULARLY  2XX USERS GUIDE AND UCB0I2CSA (DEVICE ADDRESS LOADING REGISTER WHICH SAYS " RIGHT JUSTIFIED " THATS IT AND NOTHING ELSE IT doesnt JUST SHOW HOW TO PUT THE DEVICE ADDRESS WHILE READING BECOZ R/W=1 AND IF ITZ RIGHT JUSTIFIED IT MUST MUST BE MENTION CLEARLY how to use it or it must be put in a NOTE regarding the usage.

     

     

     

    THANKS FOR UR CONCERN,

    SRIHK.

  • 0 in reply to SRIHK
    Mastermind 9701 points

    Yo, I'm finishing up an I2C interface for the MSP430F2xxx to EEPROM memory. Use the i2c example application notes; specifically slaa382 & slaa208. Also, if you don't have one yet, get an i2c bus analyzer - they're indespensible. I love my little Saleae Logic - it does everything I need, and only $150.

    There are no devices without Errata, from TI or any other manufacturer.

    --Derek

  • 0 in reply to SRIHK
    Expert 1240 points

    Srihk,

    I am not sure if I totally understand your problem, but I had a similar experience a few years back interfacing the 'f2274 with TI's TAS3103A digital audio processor's I2C port.  From the datasheet, the address of the TAS3103 is 0x68 or in binary 0b01101000.  For me to be able to access the chip, I had to shift the address 1 bit to the right so that the address that I gave to the UCBxI2CSA register was 0x34 or 0b00110100.

    When debugging serial interface problems, I would strongly suggest you make use of an oscilloscope if one is available.  I cannot count the number of hours (definitely more than 100)  that I have saved by being able to see the waveforms of the data lines versus having to guess what was happening.

    P.S.  If a chip has no device errata sheet, is not so much a sign that there are no problems with the chip, instead it is much more likely that the chip's manufacturer just hasn't taken the time to document the errors.

**Attention** This is a public forum