• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 97 subscribers
  • Views 207 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.

TMS320DM355ZCEA216

Randall Foster
Prodigy 40 points

We have designed our initial board around the TMS320DM355ZCEA216 which is now obsolete. It has been recommended that we use the SM32DM355GCEM216-EP as a replacement. The Silicon Errata (SPRZ264E) for the DM355 says that the RBL is different from the revision 1.1 to 1.3 and 1.4. If we go to the SM32DM355GCEM216-EP part is this going to affect the SW due to the RBL changes?  Is the SM32DM355GCEM216-EP  based on version 1.1, 1.3 or 1.4??

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 18130 points

    Randall,

    From reading the silicon errata it sounds like the RBL changes are only enhancements for additional features for accessing a NAND Flash (larger page size, etc.) and UART boot. The device still functions the same except for the added capability. Are you using either of these boot modes in your current design? The former doesn't look like it would impact booting at all, but the latter may be an issue.

    I am not familiar with the part numbering nomenclature of the SM class devices, but because these are military graded parts so they may be lagging behind. My best guess is silicon revision 1.1, but unless you have a specific need for the older silicon rev I suggest sticking with one of the TMS version at silicon revision 1.4.

    Please let me know if you have any other specific concerns about using the newer silicon revision.