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.

MSP430F2619SPM (Hi Temperature) vs MSP430F2619TPM



My current project has a high temperature version that we use the MSP430F2619SPM on (This part is rated to 125°C).  This part is quite expensive, so we only us it on PCB's for the high temperature version of the project.  The code, for both versions, is identical (or was) and I'd like to keep it that way.

I use the factory temperature calibration when measuring temperature.  Yesterday, I discovered that the high temp MSP430 is calibrated at 30° and 125° instead of 30° and 85° like the standard part. This sort of messes up my calculations.

I can easily add a #define to switch between the 125° and 85° calibrations, but this requires whoever is programming the part to make sure they have the correct statement in at build time.  Sooner or later someone (probably me) will program a board with the wrong calibration range. 

My other option is to read the CAL_ADC_25T85 value and based on its value decide if the calibration was done at 85° or 125°.  This works, but there's a small level of uncertainty involved.

Is there anyway to programatically distinguish between the the two versions of this part, so that at start up the chip can select the proper calibration range?  This would also be useful because the board could report to which temperature range it supports (high temp or standard temp)

Thanks

  • Hi Rkensparc,

    Good question.  As you point out, it would be great if there was a way to look up a device ID from software.  We do support this feature in the MSP430 5xx/6xx families (there, a device ID is stored in a TLV structure along with the factory calibration constants).  Unfortunately, this information is not provided in the information memory on 2xx family devices.  I'm going to check into whether the specific revision information is stored anywhere else in the device memory map, (perhaps for the bootloader), but I'm not hopeful.

    I agree that there is an unacceptable level of uncertainty associated with ranging the CAL value to determine the calibration temperature.

    Walter

**Attention** This is a public forum