• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 2 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 79 subscribers
  • Views 541 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.

MSP430F5249: RSTb/NMI and RSTDVCCb BSL Scipter Pins

Bhavesh Tailor
Intellectual 290 points

Part Number: MSP430F5249

To whom it may concern,

We are wanting to use UART BSL scripter on the MSP430F5249 and see that the BSL scripter document and the datasheet specifies to use the following pins for this functionality:

The datasheet also states the RST and RSTDVCC are OR'd as follows:

We also require use of NMI functionality.  However, we find that the BSL scripter works fine only when RST/NMI is configured as RST.  When we configure RST/NMI as NMI, we find that the BSL scripter does not work.

Please confirm if the BSL scripter can be used on the MSP430F5249 when RST/NMI is set as NMI?

If not, why not? As should the RSTDVCCb assertion not cause the RST/NMI pin to return back to RST functionality?

Look forward to hearing from you.

Many Thanks,

Bhav

  • 0
    TI__Guru 68431 points

    Hi Bhav,

    you are right the RST/NMI pin needs to be configured for Reset functionality and not with NMI. This is also mentioned int the BSL users guide chapters "Factors That Prevent BSL Invocation ..."

    Some options which you may can check as solutions for your system:

    • detect by SW that there is a BSL update and switch RST/NMI back to reset function
    • add some delay before enabling the NMI function on the RST/NMI pin which allows to enter the BSL after a reset before the NMI gets activated.

    Best regards,

     Stefan

  • 0 in reply to Stefan Schauer
    Intellectual 290 points

    Hi Stefan,

    I guess I was confused as the datasheet gives the impression that RSTDVCCb and RSTb are two separate inputs.

    Thanks for clarifying and the potential workarounds.

    Regards,

    Bhav

**Attention** This is a public forum