CC2640R2F: XDS110 is not recognized when plugged into USB 3.0 port

If you use Flash Programmer 2 or Uniflash, can they recognize your CC2640R2F?

Using Flash Programmer 2. Plugging into a Windows 10 Usb 3.0 port.

Windows 10 device manager Identifies the xds110 board is plugged in.

In Flash programmer 2, it does not identify the xds110 board until I unplug the board and plug it back in.
After which, the 2640 board is never identified or instantiated.

Try to install latest SmartRF Studio 7 and see if it can recognize it.

Could you be more specific what you mean here: "Is the problem, ground pins. because the ground pins on the XDS110 connector to the device are not grounded."

Does this mean that the XDS110 and the chip don't have the same ground potential?

I am using flash programmer 2 to access a custom board with a 2640 chip. In older version of Flash programmer 2 1.74 it is able to read the mac address, and programs the hex image.

I started with Flash programmer 2 1.75. On a usb 3 port, it would not recognized the chip at all.
I updated Flash programmer 2 to 1.80. On a usb 3 or usb2 port, it recognizes the chip.
So you can forget the usb3 question. I guess the driver was upgraded. This is no longer an issue.

The next issue in Flash Programmer 2 1.75 or 1.80, the utility will not program the chip because it says the debug interface is locked. It will not read the Mac address or program the flash. Version 1.74 will program the flash. Subsequent versions will not. Am I stuck using Flash programmer 2 1.74?

Try to do mass erase from Flash Programmer 2.

No, I have not, and I am not checking the "Keep CCFG" box.

The force mass erase completes succesfully, but I still get the same message.

Not sure why different versions of Flash Programmer 2 should behave differently. With v1.74, if you manage to read out the CCFG section, could you post this?

Version 1.74 identifies to chip as CC2640, where the subsequent versions identify it as CC2640R2F. If it makes a difference. See the attached zip which is the CCFG dumped to a bin file.

it is the same data. I am having trouble uploading a bin file. I had to jump through a bunch of hoops.

The reason I asked is that your screenshot you showed shows the CCFG as just 0xFF but the bin file looks to have expected CCFG content (I haven't checked all settings)

You have not supplied any explanation for what is happening here. Please indicate what Flash programmer 2 checks to see if the debug interface is locked. At least, it will give information on what is happening.

We seem to be at an impasse. You seem to be stuck on the screen shot and the bin file. Why don't you assume the bin file is correct, and say what is the next step. Then assume the screen shot is correct, and tell me the next step.

I still want an answer as to how Flash Programmer 2 decides that the debug interface is locked. It is a hardware check, or software check. It gives no indication what is wrong. You seem obsessed with the contents of flash. I did a Forced Mass Erase that completed successfully. the program still reported a locked debug interface. It did not resolve the issue. So, how does it decide that it is locked? It is not the contents of the CCFG.

Please go through chapter 9 in www.ti.com/.../swcu117h.pdf As covered here the CCFG dictate if the JTAG is locked or not. The .bin file you sent shows a normal CCFG as far as I can see where you can access the chip. The screenshot shows a totally erased chip where the CCFG section is overwritten and nothing should work.

We have not seen any issues like this with any of the Flash Programmer 2 versions you have used and it does not makes sense. Either the program should read the chip to be locked or not locked regardless of the version of the program.

When you have tested, do you have two installed versions of Flash Programmer 2 and you try to access the same board with the two different versions and it always gives the same result?

When you write XDS110, do you mean the www.ti.com/.../TMDSEMU110-U ?

And how much current does your board draw when programming? I can't say I have seen this issue before so I'm curious .