We are currently migrating from the MSP430F149 to the
MSP430F2417 on our hardware; the devices being pin compatible.=C2=A0 We hav=
e code which talks to the device=E2=80=99s BSL on
h/w reset and expected few issues with the port.=C2=A0 However, the mass er=
ase command does not
appear to be working correctly.

The BSL version on the 149 device is 1.10 and that on the
2417 is 2.12.=C2=A0 The MASS_ERASE command seems
to have evolved slightly for version 2.12 and so I have modified the byte s=
equence
accordingly ( 80 18 04 04 xx xx 06 a5 CKL CKH ACK )

The erase time for the new device is also longer and I have
allowed significant extra time for the ACK response here.

Other commands such as RX_PASSWORD(0x10), TX_DATA_BLOCK(0x14)
appear to work OK but I get no acknowledge( ACK or NACK ) for the
MASS_ERASE(0x18)=C2=A0 The device becomes
non-responsive after the MASS_ERASE attempt.

Any ideas as to why the MASS_ERASE no longer acknowledges?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

You said:
> I have modified the byte sequence accordingly
> ( 80 18 04 04 xx xx 06 a5 CKL CKH ACK )

You probably changed some xx xx into 06 a5. Did you change CKL CKH accordin=
gly?

--- In m...@yahoogroups.com, PAUL COALES wrote:
>=20
> We are currently migrating from the MSP430F149 to the
> MSP430F2417 on our hardware; the devices being pin compatible.=C2=A0 We h=
ave code which talks to the device=E2=80=99s BSL on
> h/w reset and expected few issues with the port.=C2=A0 However, the mass =
erase command does not
> appear to be working correctly.
>=20
> The BSL version on the 149 device is 1.10 and that on the
> 2417 is 2.12.=C2=A0 The MASS_ERASE command seems
> to have evolved slightly for version 2.12 and so I have modified the byte=
sequence
> accordingly ( 80 18 04 04 xx xx 06 a5 CKL CKH ACK )
>=20
> The erase time for the new device is also longer and I have
> allowed significant extra time for the ACK response here.
>=20
> Other commands such as RX_PASSWORD(0x10), TX_DATA_BLOCK(0x14)
> appear to work OK but I get no acknowledge( ACK or NACK ) for the
> MASS_ERASE(0x18)=C2=A0 The device becomes
> non-responsive after the MASS_ERASE attempt.
>=20
> Any ideas as to why the MASS_ERASE no longer acknowledges?
>=20
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In m...@yahoogroups.com, "old_cow_yellow" wrote:
>
> You said:
> > I have modified the byte sequence accordingly
> > ( 80 18 04 04 xx xx 06 a5 CKL CKH ACK )
>
> You probably changed some xx xx into 06 a5. Did you change CKL CKH accordingly?

Yes. The code updates the checksum has the command bytes are built up

------------------------------------

______________________________
Stellaris® MCU Family: New Parts, New Package, New Price.


(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

There appears to be an undocumented feature in the MASS_ERASE command at version 2.12 of the BSL. The MASS_ERASE address bytes( AL and AH ) need to be valid flash address; Say 0x00 0x31 for the F2417. In the slau265(july 2009) documentation, they are marked as 'don't care'

Have I missed something?

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

It is reasonable to require that the "dummy write" address to be within the range of the Flash to be erased.

It is unreasonable to call that requirement "don't care".

Good detective work!

--- In m...@yahoogroups.com, "coalespr@..." wrote:
>
> There appears to be an undocumented feature in the MASS_ERASE command at version 2.12 of the BSL. The MASS_ERASE address bytes( AL and AH ) need to be valid flash address; Say 0x00 0x31 for the F2417. In the slau265(july 2009) documentation, they are marked as 'don't care'
>
> Have I missed something?
>

------------------------------------

______________________________
Stellaris® MCU Family: New Parts, New Package, New Price.


(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Hi all,

I'm currently working withe F2618 microcontroller which has the BSL 2.12 version. I've messing around for a week thinking about this problem and I had no clue until I found this thread:
>>>There appears to be an undocumented feature in the MASS_ERASE command at version 2.12 of the BSL. The MASS_ERASE address bytes( AL and AH ) need to be valid flash address.<<<

I've tested it and works fine. It hangs no more and BSL returns 0x90. Althought that I should check that it erases fully, and if it is necessary to add the length field.

On the other hand it always returns 0xA0 when I send the VERSION command. I still have no clue of why this is happening, because I've checked several times the CRC. It wouldn't be a surprise to find another undocumented bug.

Best Regards.

------------------------------------

______________________________
Stellaris® MCU Family: New Parts, New Package, New Price.


(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )