• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 2 replies
  • Subscribers 40 subscribers
  • Views 262 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.

CC3000 Not responding after zero-length patches sent

Jim Laskowski
Intellectual 755 points

The "standard" Logic trace for the TiWi-SL startup sequence shows the following after power-up:

-> MCU sends HCI_CMND_SIMPLE_LINK_START

<- CC3000 sends HCI_EVNT_PATCHES_DRV_REQ
-> MCU sends DRV patch

<- CC3000 sends HCI_EVENT_PATCHES_BOOTLOAD_REQ
-> MCU sends BOOTLOAD patch

<- CC3000 sends HCI_EVENT_PATCHES_FW_REQ
-> MCU sends FW patch

-> CC3000 sends HCI_CMND_SIMPLE_LINK_START

I send the HCI_CMND_SIMPLE_LINK_START, the CC3000 responds with the three patch requests, and I respond to each with a zero-length patch response.  However, after the three patch requests are dealt with, the CC3000 never responds with the HCI_CMND_SIMPLE_LINK_START.  There's no activity on the trace after the third patch response. 

After the third patch response, the MCU is properly deasserting CS and CC3000 responds by deasserting the IRQ, but IRQ is not asserted after that for the HCI_CMND_SIMPLE_LINK_START as expected.

0363.jlaskowski.logicdata.zip

  • 0
    Genius 4895 points

    Hello,

    i have not checked your logic analyzer trace, but check what parameter you send in SIMPLE_LINK_START (one of the last bytes).

    #define SL_PATCHES_REQUEST_DEFAULT      (0)
    #define SL_PATCHES_REQUEST_FORCE_HOST   (1)
    #define SL_PATCHES_REQUEST_FORCE_NONE   (2)

    The value 0 is for normal operation with patches.

    The value 1 is obsolete and shall not more used. If it is still used, you have perhaps old sources of patch programmer. There was a lengthy discussion here in the forum, till this way got obsolete.

    The value 2 is the value, which shall be used during patch programming.

    It could be that you send value 0 and perhaps the patches are not available or broken. I assume it then could behave like this. I had modules months ago, which showed this behavior (but only when using value 1), once it was switched to value 2 i have never seen the sequence you have mentioned.

    Best regards,

    Martin

  • 0 in reply to Marie Maurer
    Intellectual 755 points

    Thank you very much for answering so quickly and hitting the nail on the head!  That solved it!