My trouble onLPC4088 and MT48LC4M32B2P75

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

My trouble onLPC4088 and MT48LC4M32B2P75

296 Views
lpcware
NXP Employee
NXP Employee
Content originally posted in LPCWare by andrewchen on Wed Apr 16 09:12:58 MST 2014
Hi Friend,
I have some trouble on debug MT48LC4M32B2975,Could anybody give me hand?thanks.

config.ChipSize = 128;
    config.AddrBusWidth = 32;
    config.AddrMap = EMC_ADD_MAP_ROW_BANK_COL ;/*EMC_ADD_MAP_BANK_ROW_COL ;*/
    config.CSn = 0;
    config.DataWidth =32;
    config.TotalSize = SDRAM_SIZE*8;//SDRAM_SIZE = 0x 1000000;
   
    config.CASLatency= 3;
    config.RASLatency= 3;
    config.Active2ActivePeriod =3;
    config.ActiveBankLatency =10;
    config.AutoRefrehPeriod = 3;
    config.DataIn2ActiveTime =2;
    config.DataOut2ActiveTime = 1;
    config.WriteRecoveryTime = 1;
    config.ExitSelfRefreshTime = 3;
    config.LoadModeReg2Active = 0;
    config.PrechargeCmdPeriod = 0;
    config.ReadConfig = 1;  // Command delayed strategy, using EMCCLKDELAY
    config.RefreshTime = 0x2E;
    config.Active2PreChargeTime = 2;
    config.SeftRefreshExitTime = 3;


dwtemp = *((volatile uint32_t *)(SDRAM_BASE_ADDR | (0x32<<12))); /* Mode Register Setting: 4 burst, 3 CAS latency */

LPC_EMC->DynamicConfig0 = 0x00004500;

above is  config for SDRam and following is troubles.


1)Bank0 (A0000000~A03fffff) cofuse with Bank1 (A0400000~A07fffff)  ,and Bank2(A0800000~A0bfffff)  confuse with Bank3(A0c00000~A0ffffff).That means when write into Bank1,it would cover Bank0  before writed .The same as bank2 and bank3.it look like the EMC_A13 can not work well.But I check EMC_A13 well by GPIO function.i almost can sure that hardware OK.
2)if it write a single bank ,and then verify time and time.all  is pass.if firstly write bank0 ,secondly write bank2 and then verify bank0,it will fail at every sector from 0xaXXXn400 to 0xaXXX(n+1)000. From 0xaXXXn000 to 0xaXXXn3fff is verify pass. Even if secondly not write bank2 but verify bank2,it also get the same result.

I not sure if the problem exist in address map or sdram refresh. Could anybody help me? thanks!



Labels (1)
0 Kudos
0 Replies