• State
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 41 subscribers
  • Views 508 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.

CC3200-LAUNCHXL: SimpleLink library version and chip revision

Massimo Manca
Prodigy 200 points
Part Number: CC3200-LAUNCHXL
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CC3200, , CC3100

I have a CC3200-LAUNCHXL Rev. 3.2 with a XC3200HZ chip mounted on it. In the CC3200 SimpleLink™ Wi-Fi®
SDK v1.3.0 Release Notes is written that it supports CC3200R1 chip (production chip) and CC3200-LAUNCHXL Rev. 3.2 onwards.

I have a similar situation also about CC3100 (CC3100-BOOST Rev. 3.3 mounting a XC3100HZ).

1. In my case I have no CC3200R1 mounted on it but the board is a Rev. 3.2 so I suppose 1.3.0 is not supporting my board right?

2. Is there any document describing the difference between CC3200R1 and XC3200HZ?

3. Does any patch/update exist for XC3200HZ chips to be supported by newest SimpleLink library releases or have I to live with 2 difference releases for the boards I already have in the field using XC3200HZ?

4. Last SimpleLink lib. rel for CC3200 is 1.3.0, instead for CC3100 is 1.2.0. Considering there are some bugs on 1.2.0 do you plan to update the CC3100 SimpleLink lib or is it possible to use the CC3200 lib (apart the devicelib related to the Cortex-M4 cpu that is not present in the CC3100)?

Kind regards,

Massimo

  • 0
    Guru 79985 points
    Hi Massimo,

    I can comment CC3200.

    Pre-production chips are not supported anymore by TI. Latest supported SDK for XC3200 is 1.1.0. If you want use pre-production silicon you need stay at 1.1.0. There is no other option, unless buy new CC3200-LAUNCHXL.
    I not know exact changes between pre-production and R1 devices. But this changes are very significant. For example latest SP for XC3200HZ is big in comparison in same SP version for R1. Some information about difference between pre/production devices - e2e.ti.com/.../399389

    Jan
  • 0 in reply to Jan D
    Prodigy 200 points
    Thanks, I can understand that a a pre-production chip is different than a production chip so everything related to the chip and its ROM embedded functions is not portable. I do not understand so much why the libraries written on top of the low level libraries should not be updated, because they should be portable if based on top of them.
  • 0 in reply to Massimo Manca
    TI__Mastermind 27605 points
    Hi Massimo,
    Each host driver version should only be compatible with each SP version released with or before it. Each host driver is only tested with the most recent SP, so for preproduction devices this is not possible.

    _Aaron
  • 0 in reply to made4engineering
    Prodigy 200 points

    I mean a little bit different thing. I understand that in a pre-production chip there are errors so many ROM driver's functions may need to be patched using RAM versions. May be that we could not patch every function but we couldchoose  patch the more relevant for the specific application. This may be the worst problem so I understand also it can be done at the early beginning and then stopped when production chips enter the market.

    What I can not understand is why we could not update the other libraries built on the top of the ROM drivers and their patches (for instance SimpleLink, MQTT, libXmpp, libEmail libraries). Why do not manage them in a public git repository?