• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 10 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 59 subscribers
  • Views 503 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

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.

Original question:

LP-CC2652RB: cc2652 and packet sniffer2

CC2652R: IQxel production test for Zigbee

DTeo
Intellectual 1705 points
Part Number: CC2652R
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CC2538, SMARTRFTM-STUDIO, , LAUNCHXL-CC26X2R1, FLASH-PROGRAMMER, UNIFLASH

Hi, 

My customer would like to do some packet testing for production with IQxel for the CC2652 and the CC2538. The idea is to have the IQxel do TX while the UUT does the RX. How does the customer control and do the receiving on the UUT? 

Best Regards, 

Dunman Teo

  • 0
    Guru 735625 points

    You can use SmartRF Studio connected to CC2652/CC2538 for such test.

  • 0
    TI__Guru**** 211117 points

    Hi Dunman,

    Does the customer require that Zigbee packets be sent for testing?  As Yikai mentioned, SMARTRFTM-STUDIO is adequate for IEEE 802.15.4 Specification (from which the Zigbee Spec is based).  Your customer may need to provide more details regarding what they are trying to accomplish.  The CC2652R and CC2538 devices are already listed as Zigbee Compliant Platforms but the Zigbee Alliance can be consulted for certification testing: https://zigbee.org/zigbee-for-developers/zigbee-certification/ 

    Regards,
    Ryan

  • 0 in reply to Ryan Brown1
    TI__Intellectual 1705 points

    Ryan,

    The customer is trying to conduct PER test with IQxel as the TX and SmartRF Studio as the RX. They have since managed to get the setup for CC2652R working after they downloaded the latest version of the SmartRF Studio. However, for the above set-up for the CC2538, they are only able to receive the first packet and the subsequent packets are missing. The same TX set-up on IQxel works well for CC2652R. Any idea why this is so?

    Best Regards,

    Dunman Teo

  • 0 in reply to DTeo
    TI__Guru**** 211117 points

    Dunman,

    Do you know of any differences between the Smart RF Studio sessions other than device type?  Are you using TI EVMs or custom PCBs, and have these boards been confirmed to operate under normal conditions?

    Regards,
    Ryan

  • 0 in reply to Ryan Brown1
    TI__Intellectual 1705 points

    Hi Ryan,

    For the CC2652, customer had used their own board and TI DK. Both worked with IQxel. However, for the CC2538 board, they only used their own board as they did not have the EVM. The CC2538 is able to TX but the RX can only receive the first packet as previously described.

    BR,

    Dunman

  • 0 in reply to DTeo
    TI__Guru**** 211117 points

    Are they using Continuous RX or Packet RX, and have they tried disabling the  "Seq. Number Included in Payload" box in Packet Rx?  Has the CC2538 board been verified to receive multiple bytes with typical Zigbee/15.4-Stack operation?

    Regards,
    Ryan

  • 0 in reply to Ryan Brown1
    TI__Intellectual 1705 points

    Hi Ryan, 

    Customer feedback that disabling the  "Seq. Number Included in Payload"  does not make a difference. Their  CC2538 board is able to work with their CC2652 board without any problems. They only see this issue when doing PER test with CC2538 in RX. Receiving packet by packet is also working fine if they click send packet in 1 second intervals.

    Regards, 

    Dunman 

  • 0 in reply to DTeo
    TI__Guru**** 211117 points

    Hi Dunman,

    I am observing similar issues with SmartRF Studio sessions between a LAUNCHXL-CC26X2R1 Packet TX and SMARTRF06EB + CC2538DK Packet RX.  The packets seemingly need to be spaced greater than 150 ms apart or else they are not received.  Please note that you need to completely erase flash memory using UNIFLASH or FLASH-PROGRAMMER before opening your SMARTRFTM-STUDIO session.  I will notify the SimpleLink HW team so that they can further comment on expected behavior.

    Regards,
    Ryan

  • 0 in reply to Ryan Brown1
    TI__Intellectual 1705 points

    Ryan,

    Any feedback from the team?

    Best Regards,

    Dunman

  • 0 in reply to DTeo
    TI__Mastermind 43035 points

    DTeo,

    Please see here.

    We will report this issue to our tools team. 

    BR,

    Seong