LPC MicrocontrollersのトピックRe: LPC54606J512BD100 vs LPC54606J256BD100 program execution

LPC54606J512BD100 vs LPC54606J256BD100 program execution

vijo — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:17:33 GMT

hi,

my 75k program build for the LPC54606J512BD100 internal flash runs ok, but for some reason the same program loaded in a LPC54606J256BD100 CPU does not run.

Any good ideas of what to check ?

Best regards

Viggo

Re: LPC54606J512BD100 vs LPC54606J256BD100 program execution

frank_m — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 15:00:58 GMT

The LPC54606J256BD100 has only half the Flash size.

Did you check the map file, if the code layout is compatible with both types, i.e. the associated address ranges ?

Tried to debug ?

Re: LPC54606J512BD100 vs LPC54606J256BD100 program execution

vijo — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 15:39:37 GMT

hi frank

yes I'm avare of the 256K flash size(address from 0 to 0x4 0000) but my programs last/max load address is 0x1 7e90 according to the map file.

The memory mapadresses is the same for the 2 CPUs according to the datasheet.

No haven't debugged yet. I was just assuming that the program would load and run directly.

Re: LPC54606J512BD100 vs LPC54606J256BD100 program execution

frank_m — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 16:04:24 GMT

That assumption is not unjustified - from a superficial comparison, I can't see any other difference between both types.

There might be other reasons, but that involves assumptions about your application, i.e. the code.

Re: LPC54606J512BD100 vs LPC54606J256BD100 program execution

Alice_Yang — Tue, 23 Mar 2021 09:37:18 GMT

Hello Vijo,

Could you please describe more detail about "CPU dose not run" ?

How about debug it? Does it stop at one step or can't run up ? Or something others?

What about your project ? How change to other project?

Alice

Re: LPC54606J512BD100 vs LPC54606J256BD100 program execution

vijo — Tue, 23 Mar 2021 10:12:05 GMT

hello Alice,

well I can se that my application is not behaving correctly in the 256K CPU. Exactely the same application is running fine in the 512K CPU.

I'm loading the application as a bin file via the USB port in mass storage mode in both CPUs.

I have not done further debugging of the problem as we only have 3 pcs of the 256K CPU(due to the market situation), and we are switching to the flashless LPC54016 in stead of, and concentrtate on that.

I write this support ticket to see if others have had the same problem - and maybe a solution.

By studying the data sheet, the memory map is exactely the same for the 256K and the 512K variants and I was naive enough just to try it - and now my curiosity is waked up;-)

Viggo

Re: LPC54606J512BD100 vs LPC54606J256BD100 program execution

abnxpweb — Tue, 23 Mar 2021 10:57:18 GMT

IIRC, the LPC546xx 256KB flash devices have less RAM on board than the 512KB flash devices.

I would suspect that your 512KB device targeted project is placing the stack pointer at a RAM location that doesn't exist on the 256KB device. Which will cause a hard fault or similar as your application starts executing.

If this is the case, then the solution would probably be to change the location that the stack pointer in being placed at. If using MCUXpresso IDE, you could probably do this by just using the memory configuration editor to reduce the size of the first RAM bank (more info in the IDE User Guide).

Hope this helps!

Re: LPC54606J512BD100 vs LPC54606J256BD100 program execution

converse — Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:34:05 GMT

A simple look at the data sheet shows that the 256 variant has less RAM than the 512 variant, so I suggest you review the placement of the stack and heap as they are likely to have been placed into locations that do not exist, thus causing a hard fault.

if you want a single binary that runs on both variants, build it for the smaller one - never for the larger one.

Re: LPC54606J512BD100 vs LPC54606J256BD100 program execution

frank_m — Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:59:27 GMT

> ...so I suggest you review the placement of the stack and heap as they are likely to have been placed into locations that do not exist, thus causing a hard fault.

Definitely, since most linkers put the stack at the very and of the RAM. A rebuild with the proper linker script (i.e. MCU variant) should suffice.

Yes, reading the fine print ... not that I never neglected it

Re: LPC54606J512BD100 vs LPC54606J256BD100 program execution

vijo — Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:57:56 GMT

tank you for the input.

From the ordering options 256K flash type is only with 136K RAM, not 200K.

Neither datasheet nor manual states which areas are left out, but it must be the SRAM2 and SRAM3 32K areas.

Viggo

Re: LPC54606J512BD100 vs LPC54606J256BD100 program execution

Alice_Yang — Thu, 25 Mar 2021 07:57:45 GMT

Hello vijo,

Yes, you are right, the 256K chip LPC54606j256 doesn't includes SRAM2 and SRAM3.

The memory detail should like below:

Alice

Re: LPC54606J512BD100 vs LPC54606J256BD100 program execution

vijo — Thu, 25 Mar 2021 08:20:37 GMT

hello Alice,

great, thank you for the info.

Could this be expressed a bit more visible please in the data sheet or the manual. You screen dump is from the MCUXpresso.

Viggo

Re: LPC54606J512BD100 vs LPC54606J256BD100 program execution

Alice_Yang — Fri, 26 Mar 2021 07:15:33 GMT

Hello vijo,

Yes, there isn't mentioned in UM and DS, I will submit a ticket to document team.

Thanks for your sharing.

Alice