Kinetis MicrocontrollersのトピックRe: K82 returning incorrect ID in boundary scan

K82 returning incorrect ID in boundary scan

olly12 — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 07:14:28 GMT

I have a board with two MK82FN256VDC15 processors that we will be using boundary scan to test.

It's all working fine, interconnect and various other tests are all good. However the initial infrastructure test fails as it returns the wrong ID.

There does not appear to be BSDL available for K82, however the K80 BSDL files say that the internal structure is identical to the K80 and so the K80 BSDL can be used.
I am using the file K80-121BGA.BSDL. The ID code within is:
00001000001111011001000000011101
However - I am getting a slightly different result....
00011011001111011001000000011101

There seem to be 3 bonus 1's, one in the version block and two in the part number block.

Whilst I could fix this by editing the BSDL to hide the failure, I need to understand why I'm getting a different value to expected. It is important that we know components are genuine, so I would need a very good explanation as to why the BSDL needed modification - I may just be masking a counterfeit component issue.
Our components are purchased through a CEM who is required to buy through approved channels.

Any insights appreciated.

Re: K82 returning incorrect ID in boundary scan

Celeste_Liu — Fri, 09 Oct 2026 10:53:47 GMT

Hello @olly12 ,

Thank you for reporting this issue and bringing it to our attention.

Based on the JTAG ID Register definition in the datasheet, where PRN = 0001, it appears that the IDCODE value in the BSDL file may be incorrect.

I will report this issue to our internal team for further verification and correction. To proceed with our escalation process, could you please provide some details about your end application?

Thanks again!

Celeste

Re: K82 returning incorrect ID in boundary scan

Celeste_Liu — Sat, 10 Oct 2026 08:51:55 GMT

Hello @olly12 ，

The internal has confirmed that the reported IDCODE 0x1B3D901D is consistent with MK82FN256VDC15 with mask 1N03P. The supplied BSDL expects 0x083D901D, which differs in two fields:

DC: The documented value is 0x2C, while the BSDL uses 0x20 — K82 Reference Manual Rev. 2, §65.3.3, pp. 2193–2194.
PRN: Mask 1N03P uses revision 1, while the BSDL specifies 0 — K82 Data Sheet Rev. 2, p. 2.

We have also performed an independent JTAG check on the device, also got the IDCode 0x1B3D901D. Therefore, the mismatch you reported can be explained by the BSDL IDCODE definition. This mismatch alone does not indicate a counterfeit device.

Sorry for the inconvenience caused by the error in the BSDL file. I will continue to follow up on the correction.

Celeste