BQ35100: SEAL and UNSEAL commands

Hi Naga,

The device must be unsealed before setting the chemID. On the right side of bqstudio there is a command, UNSEAL_FULL_ACCESS.

Best,

Hi Nick,

  I remembered doing that way, anyways I have tried to redo that again. Please check my findings below.

1. After RESET the SEC1=1, SEC0=HIGH

2. If I send the command the command  UNSEAL_FULLACCESS, then it is asking for KEY and if I use FFFFFFFF  for key, I still read SEC1=1, SC0=1

3. But If I send the commands UNSEAL followed by UNSEAL_FULLACESS, then I read SEC1=0, SEC0=1.

    3.1 Then if I attempt CHEM ID program (Tadiran TL-4930), then it is giving me the Error Chemistry programming Failed, Error code=772..

Please let me know what I am missing here, I am attaching the screen shots of BQ Studio for your reference.

Hi Naga,

Error 772: Nacks are common. It is normal practice for end equipment to retry if there is a Nack. Usually 3 times, to limit an infinite loop caused by a bad physical connection.

Best,

Hi Nick,

   Yes, it finally got programmed successfully in the second attempt. But I programmed the CHEM ID with 0608, but when I issue the command CHEM_ID, then I am still getting the result 0x0606, 

I think I should  read it as 0608, not really sure what I am missing here.

Thanks,

Naga.

Hi Nick,

  Please let me know if you have any clues about the problem that I mentioned in the previous posting.

Thanks,

Naga.

Hi Naga,

We are looking into this.

Best,

Hi Naga,

Can you upload the srec file here so I can take a look?

Thanks,

Hi Nick,

I have used Golden Image Export operation that is illustrated in the attachment, please let me know if you need anything else.

Thanks,

Naga.

0100_1_02-bq35100.zip

Hi Nick,

  Any updates here? Please let me know.

Thanks,

Naga.

We will respond by next week.

Hi Naga,

We were able to update chemID after unsealing device. BQstudio allowed us to edit chemID while it was sealed (but after reading chemID it did not appear to change), this issue we are looking into.

Hi Nick,

   Are you saying It is letting us change the CHEM ID only once very first time (for brand new IC)?

  Also Please keep me posted about your findings.

Thanks,

Naga.

Hi Naga,

We had no issue changing the chemID with your srec multiple times when device was unsealed.

What is strange is that bqstudio allowed changing chemID when device was sealed, bqstudio should have not allowed this.

Best,

Hi Nick,

  I am glad you are able to see the same problem ("Writing CHEM ID is successful, but not able to read it back") that I am seeing.

Look forward to your  resolution to this problem.

Thanks,

Naga.

Hello Nick,

    Do you think the problem pertains to CHEM ID reading only? and is it actually responding to the new CHEM ID write and  the functionality is reflected as per the new CHEM ID?

  Could you please verify this?

While you are studying this problem, I would continue with my design work if the problem is just with the CHEM ID read.

Also please let me know if you have any tentative date for the problem resolution.

Thanks,

Naga.

Hi,

Our firmware team is looking at this issue and we will get back to you as soon as we can.

Thanks,

Hi Nick,

   Any updates here? please let me know.

Thanks,

Naga.

Our FW team is still looking into this.

Best,

Hello Nick,

  While you are working on the issue, could you please suggest us alternate field proven solution that is suitable for our application.

As you know We use the LiSoCl2 batteries from TADIRAN TL-5930 19AH, and we like the EOS detection.

I look forward to your reply.

Thanks,

Naga.

Hi Naga,

Passing this on from our FW team:

We were able to reproduce the problem. I would have expected an error to be generated by the backend, and this is the behavior with other platforms. 

We think the most straightforward change here is to check the sealed state before programming the chemistry and to alert the user with a popup if the gauge is sealed rather than trying to program the chemistry at all. That at least results in an error message that explains the actual problem, rather than just reporting that the data read back does not match that which was programmed. I am still concerned that this particular firmware behaves differently than other firmwares, including those that run on this platform. This would have to be fixed in the next release of bqstudio, but there are risks involved that we must evaluate first.

Best Regards,