• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 20 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 52 subscribers
  • Views 2909 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.

CC2538-CC2592EMK: Receive signal strength very low

Andrew Fox11
Prodigy 160 points
Part Number: CC2538-CC2592EMK
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CC2592, CC2531, CC2538

Hi, I've developed a zigbee module based on the CC2538-CC2592EM reference design, and am using the TI eval modules  to get some benchmark perfromance figures. During testing I have found that the TI reference boards have very low receive signal strength.

Test setup.

- Zigbee coordinator approx 2m away, sending constant NWK messages

- CC2538-CC2592EMK board attached to a XDS1200v3 through the cJTAG pins, and running SmartRF Receive Packet test. CC2592 range extender is enabled, and set to high gain mode

- Zigbee sniffer on laptop, within 50cms of CC2538-CC2592EMK. The sniffer is the CC2531 USB device.

I've attached log of results from Smart RF packet receive. It shows that the receive RSSI is very low, around -70dBm to -80dBm, with occassional packet loss, however the sniffer, which is close by, shows consistent receive values of around -40dBm. This is not what I expected. Is there something in the setup that's missing?

09:24:50.008 | 1b | 16776 | 91 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 3e d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -70
09:25:04.976 | 1b | 16776 | 92 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 3f d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -70
09:25:19.047 | 1b | 16776 | 93 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 40 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -70
09:25:31.637 | 10 | 1527 | 96 98 96 1b 80 1e 0d a9 ca 63 e9 b6 e5  | -104 CRC error
09:25:34.316 | 1b | 16776 | 94 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 41 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -76
09:25:51.250 | 1b | 16776 | 95 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 42 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -73
09:26:09.131 | 1b | 16776 | 96 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 43 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -76
09:26:26.340 | 1b | 16776 | 97 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 44 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -76
09:26:41.836 | 1b | 16776 | 98 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 45 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -75
09:26:56.509 | 1b | 16776 | 99 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 46 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -76
09:27:12.828 | 1b | 16776 | 9a 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 47 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -73
09:27:29.798 | 1b | 16776 | 9b 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 48 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -84
09:27:47.501 | 1b | 16776 | 9c 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 49 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -77
09:28:02.997 | 1b | 16776 | 9d 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 4a d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -74
09:28:08.845 | 08 | 0776 | 1c ff ff ff ff 07  |  -54
09:28:17.363 | 1a | 0128 | 95 45 e4 00 00 ff cf 00 00 00 20 67 b9 c2 55 da bd c1 d4 87 ff ff ff 00  |  -82 CRC error
09:28:24.188 | 1b | 16776 | 9e 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 4b d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -54
09:28:31.159 | 1a | 0128 | 97 45 e4 00 00 ff cf 00 00 00 20 84 b9 c2 55 da bd c1 d4 87 ff ff ff 00  |  -54
09:28:32.391 | 1a | 0128 | 98 45 e4 00 00 ff cf 00 00 00 20 84 b9 c2 55 da bd c1 d4 87 ff ff ff 00  |  -80
09:28:37.946 | 08 | 0776 | 56 ff ff ff ff 07  |  -53
09:28:38.126 | 1a | 0128 | 99 45 e4 00 00 ff cf 00 00 00 20 84 b9 c2 55 da bd c1 d4 87 ff ff ff 00  |  -78
09:28:48.613 | 1b | 16776 | a0 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 4d d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -78
09:29:04.699 | 1b | 16776 | a1 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 4e d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -80
09:29:20.071 | 1b | 16776 | a2 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 4f d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -78
09:29:37.163 | 1b | 16776 | a3 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 50 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -90
09:29:51.744 | 1b | 16776 | a4 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 51 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -90
09:30:06.795 | 1b | 16776 | a5 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 52 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -91
09:30:21.531 | 1b | 16776 | a6 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 53 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -91
09:30:37.479 | 1b | 16776 | a7 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 54 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -85
09:30:51.390 | 1b | 16776 | a8 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 55 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -88
09:31:05.578 | 1b | 16776 | a9 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 56 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -85
09:31:21.892 | 1b | 16776 | aa 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 57 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60  |  -83

Regards

Andrew Fox

  • 0
    Prodigy 160 points
    Hi moderators, this is in the wrong forum. When I submitted the post, it only gave me the option to use the Bluetooth LE forum, however a note in the help file indicated that when the postwas checked, you would be putting in the correct forum. This post should be in something relating to CC2538 or CC2592, or Zigbee or general wireless connectivity. It is definitely not about BLE
  • 0 in reply to Andrew Fox11
    Guru 735685 points
    I suggest you to use SmartRF Studio 7 to do TX/RX test first to verify your design.
  • 0 in reply to YiKai Chen
    Prodigy 160 points
    Please read the original post. I am not using my custom board, I AM using the TI CC2538-CC2592EMK board, and I'm using SmartRF 7 rx packet tests. The TI board has very low recieved signal strength, around -70 to -80 dBm with trasnmistter only 2m away.
  • 0 in reply to Andrew Fox11
    Guru 735685 points

    Do you select Range Extender to CC2592 in SmartRF Studio 7 when you do the test?

  • 0 in reply to YiKai Chen
    Prodigy 160 points
    Yes, as I stated in the original post. I have enabled the CC2592 and set high gain mode in Smart RF
  • 0 in reply to Andrew Fox11
    Prodigy 160 points
    The following are some lines captured from Smart RF log, during the rx packet test.

    09:24:50.008 | 1b | 16776 | 91 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 3e d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60 | -70
    09:25:04.976 | 1b | 16776 | 92 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 3f d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60 | -70
    09:25:19.047 | 1b | 16776 | 93 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 40 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60 | -70
    09:25:31.637 | 10 | 1527 | 96 98 96 1b 80 1e 0d a9 ca 63 e9 b6 e5 | -104 CRC error
    09:25:34.316 | 1b | 16776 | 94 45 e4 ff ff 00 00 09 10 fc ff 00 00 01 41 d8 5a c5 40 00 a2 13 00 08 60 | -76
  • 0 in reply to Andrew Fox11
    Guru 735685 points
    I do similar test with my CC2538-CC2592EMK and CC2531EMK-USB. The followings are my results

    12:19:03.441 | 0000 | 13 0d 89 0a 1c db ae 32 20 9a 50 ee 40 78 36 fd 12 49 32 f6 9e 7d 49 dc ad 4f 14 f2 | -25
    12:19:04.462 | 0001 | 13 0d 89 0a 1c db ae 32 20 9a 50 ee 40 78 36 fd 12 49 32 f6 9e 7d 49 dc ad 4f 14 f2 | -25
    12:19:05.342 | 0002 | 13 0d 89 0a 1c db ae 32 20 9a 50 ee 40 78 36 fd 12 49 32 f6 9e 7d 49 dc ad 4f 14 f2 | -25
    12:19:06.204 | 0003 | 13 0d 89 0a 1c db ae 32 20 9a 50 ee 40 78 36 fd 12 49 32 f6 9e 7d 49 dc ad 4f 14 f2 | -25
    12:19:07.125 | 0004 | 13 0d 89 0a 1c db ae 32 20 9a 50 ee 40 78 36 fd 12 49 32 f6 9e 7d 49 dc ad 4f 14 f2 | -25
    12:19:08.136 | 0005 | 13 0d 89 0a 1c db ae 32 20 9a 50 ee 40 78 36 fd 12 49 32 f6 9e 7d 49 dc ad 4f 14 f2 | -25
    12:19:09.057 | 0006 | 13 0d 89 0a 1c db ae 32 20 9a 50 ee 40 78 36 fd 12 49 32 f6 9e 7d 49 dc ad 4f 14 f2 | -25
    12:19:09.927 | 0007 | 13 0d 89 0a 1c db ae 32 20 9a 50 ee 40 78 36 fd 12 49 32 f6 9e 7d 49 dc ad 4f 14 f2 | -25
    12:19:10.948 | 0008 | 13 0d 89 0a 1c db ae 32 20 9a 50 ee 40 78 36 fd 12 49 32 f6 9e 7d 49 dc ad 4f 14 f2 | -25
    12:19:11.979 | 0009 | 13 0d 89 0a 1c db ae 32 20 9a 50 ee 40 78 36 fd 12 49 32 f6 9e 7d 49 dc ad 4f 14 f2 | -25
    12:19:12.980 | 0010 | 13 0d 89 0a 1c db ae 32 20 9a 50 ee 40 78 36 fd 12 49 32 f6 9e 7d 49 dc ad 4f 14 f2 | -25
    12:19:13.911 | 0011 | 13 0d 89 0a 1c db ae 32 20 9a 50 ee 40 78 36 fd 12 49 32 f6 9e 7d 49 dc ad 4f 14 f2 | -25
  • 0 in reply to YiKai Chen
    Prodigy 160 points
    This is what I would expect. So is there any particular calibration or setup required on the CC2538, or do I have faulty boards. I've tried both boards in the kit and get same result. Just to review my setup, I have an XDS100v3 debugger connected to a TI CC2538-CC2592EM board using the cJTAG pins (Vtarget, TMS, TCLK and GND). The CC2538-CC2592EM is powered by 5V USB, and I've bridged the 3V supply to the cJTAG Vtarget connection. Smart RF finds the device ok and I can run the tests ok. I also have the CC2531 USB sniffer.
  • 0 in reply to Andrew Fox11
    Guru 735685 points
    No particular calibration or setup required as I know. Can you take a picture of your CC2538-CC2592EM board and attach it?
  • 0 in reply to Andrew Fox11
    Prodigy 160 points
    Are you using the SmartRF06EB? Does this do anything differently that is not happening when I just use the cJTAG connection?
  • 0 in reply to Andrew Fox11
    Guru 735685 points
    Yes, I use SmartRF06EB. I don't think it would act differently to use cJTAG connection. However, you can try SmartRF06EB to verify it.
  • 0 in reply to Andrew Fox11
    Prodigy 160 points

    Board from front & rear. Note that the read wire is to bridge the 3V to the EM connector for the cJTAG Vtarget.

  • 0 in reply to Andrew Fox11
    Prodigy 160 points
    I don't have the SmartRF06, that's why I'm using the XDS100. I checked the schematic of the SmartRF06 and it only connects to the CC2538 GPIO pins, so it should make any difference to the SmartRF testing.
  • 0 in reply to Andrew Fox11
    Guru 735685 points
    The only difference I think is that SmartRF06EB can provide much larger ground pad and it might give better RF performance.
  • 0 in reply to YiKai Chen
    Prodigy 160 points
    Hi YK, Would you please post a copy of your register settings in SmartRF, for the test setup you did earlier. I'm not expecting anything to be different to my settings but want to make sure. This issue is a real problem for me as this project is now behind schedule and waiting till this is resolved.
    Thanks for your help so far. I've also sent a support email to TI but haven't received a reply yet.
  • 0 in reply to Andrew Fox11
    Guru 735685 points

    NameAddressValueDescription
    FRMCTRL1 0x40088628 0x00 Frame handling
    FREQCTRL 0x4008863C 0x15 Controls the RF frequency
    TXPOWER 0x40088640 0xFF Controls the output power
    FSCAL1 0x400886B8 0x01 Tune frequency calibration
    AGCCTRL1 0x400886C8 0x15 AGC reference level
    TXFILTCFG 0x400887E8 0x09 TX filter configuration
    IVCTRL 0x400D6004 0x0B Analog control register
    GPIO_C_DATA 0x400DB3FC 0x08
    GPIO_C_DIR 0x400DB400 0x0C
    GPIO_D_DIR 0x400DC400 0x04
  • 0 in reply to YiKai Chen
    Prodigy 160 points
    My FRMCTRL1 value was 0x01, changed to 0x00 but made no difference. I also have a lot of other registers that show up in the window but I assume you didn't send all because they're not relevant.

    Do you know how I can escalate this with TI? They still haven't responded to my email.
  • 0 in reply to Andrew Fox11
    Guru 735685 points
    I don't know how to escalate this with TI. I suggest you to buy SmartRF06EB to verify this.
  • 0 in reply to Andrew Fox11
    TI__Guru** 106705 points
    Hi Andrew,

    It does not seem like you are connecting pin 1 of P5 to any voltage source, is that correct? If so, you are not powering the device properly. Refer to the CC2538-CC2592EM reference design for details.

    Cheers,
    Fredrik
  • 0 in reply to Fredrik K
    Prodigy 160 points

    Hi,

    Yes Pin 1 is connected via jumper. It might be hard to see. I have the board powered by USB, linking Pins 1&3 but also have pin 2 linked so that the VDD_EB signal on the EM connector is getting the voltage. On the EM connector I have pins TMS, TCK, VDD_EB (going to JTAG Vtarget) and GND connected to the XDS100v3 debugger.

    The device appears in SmartRF ok, and I can run the packet rx tests, however the receive signal strength is terrible.