• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 62 subscribers
  • Views 505 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.

BQ79600-Q1: BQ79600<->BQ79606<->BQ79606 init procedure

Grant Freese
Intellectual 700 points
Part Number: BQ79600-Q1
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: BQ79600EVM, BQ79616

Summary:
I'm using the BQ79600 as a bridge to talk to a stack of two BQ79606's. The 600's datasheet only mentions the initialization procedure for talking to a stack of 616's though. Is there an initialization procedure available for 600<->606<->606 for both non-ring and ring architectures?

Hardware:
BQ79600EVM [COMH] <-> [COML] BQ79606EVM [COMH] <-> [COML] BQ79606EVM [COMH]
* both 606's have J13 and SW1 set to 'stack'


Detail:
Currently, I'm able to:
* wake the 600 via UART
* read/write registers on the 600
* send the stack wakeup command to wake up the 606's (D1 lights up)

I'm not able to get responses from device or stack register reads from the 606's, and I do not see the LED turn off when sending device/stack writes to set the shutdown bit, so I'm thinking that the auto-addressing is not working.

I've tried following the 600<->616 init procedure, from the 600's datasheet, but the registers for the 616 are different than the 606, and only provided as hex, so I can't really compare it with the 606.

I've also tried following the init procedure from the 606 software design reference whitepaper (SLVA970E), but it's unclear whether I need to send broadcast or stack commands.

Help on this would be most appreciated

Also.. Is there a safety-critical driver available for this part? The example code for the 606 isn't really what I'd call production code.

  • 0
    TI__Genius 17370 points

    Hi Grant,

    We do not actively support use of the bq79600 with bq79606 but rather with the bq79616 and bq7x61x family of devices. I recommend transitioning to this device if the intention is to use the 600. bq79616 is the newer generation device with improved features anyhow. If you request more info in blue on 616 product folder, we can point you to some other example code once you get access to our secure SW material. We do not provide safety drivers but rather a safety manual to guide and support users to design their own based on their unique system safety requirements that are flexible in the industry.

    Regards,

    Taylor

  • 0 in reply to Taylor Vogt
    Intellectual 700 points

    My team discussed using the 616, but we decided it's too risky to implement parts from TI that require NDA to use, since TI only provides the bare minimum of support, and only on a public forum. 

    Given that the BQ606 has been superseded by the BQ616, can you tell me the minimum time the BQ606 will be in production for?

    The diagram below is from the first page of the BQ79600 datasheet (SLUSDS1A, Aug 2020). It says it supports "BQ796XX" devices. This is why we originally designed in the BQ600 expecting it to be capable of talking to a chain of BQ606's. 

  • 0 in reply to Grant Freese
    TI__Genius 17370 points

    Hi Grant,

    Unfortunately it was an oversight to say BQ796XX as the 616 family has other spin names as well. I will forward this feedback to our team. bq79606 should be in production for awhile so it should not be a concern to choose it without 600 use case. However, the bq79616 is released to market now so it should not be huge concern for NDA unless you need detailed safety/code information at this point.

    Regards,

    Taylor