Flash access time for LPC54628 at 220MHz

[hugo_gateau]

In documentation (UM10912.pdf section 6.5.64 Table 182 FLASHTIM) we can read that the LPC54628 can operate with 8 system clocks flash access time (for system clock rates up to 168 MHz and for system clock rates 180 MHz < CCLK <= 220 MHz). So at 220 MHz I would expect 8 system clocks access time instead of 9 at 180 MHz.

But in the SDK CLOCK driver version 2.2.0. this is not the case in fls_clock.c:

void CLOCK_SetFLASHAccessCyclesForFreq(uint32_t iFreq)

{

    ....

    else if (iFreq <= 168000000U)
    {

        CLOCK_SetFLASHAccessCycles(kCLOCK_Flash8Cycle);
    }
    else
    {
        CLOCK_SetFLASHAccessCycles(kCLOCK_Flash9Cycle);
    }

}

Am I missing something or is it a mistake ?

Thank you for your help.

[hugo_gateau]

Hello,

Thank you it completely fixed my issue.

Indeed it was SDK 2.6 I was mislead by the file header:

/*! @name Driver version */

/*@{*/

/*! @brief CLOCK driver version 2.2.0. */

#define FSL_CLOCK_DRIVER_VERSION (MAKE_VERSION(2, 2, 0))

/*@}*/

This is off topic but is there a way to match SDK version with driver version ?

Thank you.

[Alice_Yang · Accepted solution]

Hello Hugo Gateau,

Yes, I also think this is a bug, you can add the connect 180 MHz < CCLK  220 MHz in

8 system clocks part. I will report it to SDK Development team, thanks for your sharing.

BTW, recommend you use the latest SDK version v2.6 and refer to the latest User Manual of UM10912.

(The new version also has this bug, while it fixed some other issue in old versions.)

Have a great day,
TIC

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
- If this post answers your question, please click the "Mark Correct" button. Thank you!

- We are following threads for 7 weeks after the last post, later replies are ignored
Please open a new thread and refer to the closed one, if you have a related question at a later point in time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------