Other Parts Discussed in Thread: EK-TM4C123GXL, , SEGGER
I am working on updating a TM4C123 design to a TM4C129 and trying to make as many improvements as possible in the process. To date we have used the ICDI debugger from an EK-TM4C123GXL to load software and debug (single-step, set breakpoints, view memory, etc.). We use a Tag-Connect cable with a customized pinout which includes the UART0 signals, reset, and power for the target. It has served us well, but I wonder what we are leaving on the table with regard to debugger speed and trace capabilities. So I am trying to figure out whether we should switch to or add a different debug connector and which debugger hardware would let us take advantage of the new capabilities.
I have been looking at the XDS110 and XDS200. It looks like they use the 0.05” pitch 20-pin TI CTI connector and pinout, with adapters for other connectors. Most of the examples I have seen for TM4C129 boards seem to use the 0.05” pitch 10-pin Cortex debug connector, which omits a number of the signals. What would I give up by using the smaller connector with either of those debuggers? It looks like you can access the Embedded Trace Macrocell (ETM) with any XDS debugger (though not with ICDI). [Correction: The XDS110 can access the ETB, not ETM, on MCUs which have one; the TM4C129 does not.] Does the ETM give backtrace capabilities (after a crash) with CCS?
Does the XDS200 provide significant advantages over the XDS110 when used with the TM4C129? I see that it has active JTAG clocking while the XDS110 does not, but I don’t think the TM4C129 supports that anyway. Is the XDS200 faster even without active JTAG clocking? Is that a big advantage when loading software, or is the load time already dominated by the time it takes to program the MCU’s flash after it is transferred? Are there functional advantages of the XDS200?
If we took the leap to the XDS560v2, would the 20-pin connector support all of the additional features it would provide, or does that require a 60-pin connector? Or maybe the TM4C129 doesn’t support those features at all?
Thanks,
Steve