MPC5777C muxed 32-bit EBI without external latch

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

MPC5777C muxed 32-bit EBI without external latch

Jump to solution
2,750 Views
DKa
Contributor II

Hello,

we want to use the muxed 32-bit EBI of the MPC5777C to adress an SRAM CY7C1441KV33. On the EVB of the MPC5777C a external 16-bit latch was used in combination with the CY7C1347G-166AXC as SRAM, which has a more or less similar internal structure as the CY7C1441KV33. As far as i know, both of have an internal adress register, which can be used to latch an adress via the \ADSP or \ADSC Signal. I connected the \ADSP to EBI_TS and the \ADSC to EBI_ALE. As i understand this i should be able to work with the muxed EBI without external latch, altough the schematics of the MPC5777C-EVB tells me otherwise.

CY7C1441KV33:

https://www.cypress.com/part/cy7c1441kv33-133axi 

Am I correct or is the external latch the only way to use the muxed 32-bit EBI?

0 Kudos
Reply
1 Solution
2,513 Views
davidtosenovjan
NXP TechSupport
NXP TechSupport

I am forwarding an answer as I got it from design:

"If the external memory is latching address at posedge CLK where TS=0 and then holding the address internally for rest of transfer (thus immune to toggling of muxed A/D on address pins during data-phase), then I think it can work ok without ALE. The comments by DKa on the site listed at bottom makes sense to me.

The ALE is there to support devices that require address to be stable, as that was the common case at the time. Also note that the relationship between TS rising edge and address-invalid is not guaranteed, so memory must use posedge CLK to latch address and not rising-edge TS. From description of memory, sounds like we are good here."

It seems there wasn't any specific reason why we have been using external latch, it was just implemented the same way how it was on device's predecessors.

Hope it helps

View solution in original post

6 Replies
2,677 Views
DKa
Contributor II

Thank you for your quick reply. I have a second question regarding the multiplexed EBI. In the Reference Manual MPC5777C p.1032-1033 Chapter 27.5.2.12 there is a description of the functionality of a multiplexed EBI. After examining Figure 27-53 i'm pretty sure that the MPC will always prevent a adress and data phase overlap in multiplexed 32-bit EBI mode. Am I correct?

If i am, it should be possible to use the multiplexed EBI with the SRAM i mentioned. The SRAM samples the adress bus on the rising edge, when TS (connected to ADSP of the SRAM) is activ. TS is only asserted, for the first clock cycle and is therefore only activ in the adress phase. As i understand Figure 27-37 on p.1010 of the RM MPC5777C a burst cycle should not trigger TS. Therefore, TS can be used to latch the adress inside the SRAM without an external latch. ALE is not used.

0 Kudos
Reply
2,663 Views
davidtosenovjan
NXP TechSupport
NXP TechSupport

The main point is that both mentioned memories (CY7C1347G-166AXC and CY7C1441KV33) expects two separate busses (address and data). In order to separate address from muxed addr/data lines we are using external latch. I have not seen another way of connection either on NXP EVB or customer board.

To answer your question - there is no phase overlap.

Potential issue I would see in the fact /TS signal and ALE signal has not the same timing. /TS is asserted/negated in the same moment as address phase starts/ends whilst ALE is asserted in the middle of the address bus cycle as you can see in the DS, Figure 28. ALE signal timing.

davidtosenovjan_0-1635845567876.png

Unfortunately I cannot answer you conclusively. I am not sure if /TS is enough for proper latching of valid address.

0 Kudos
Reply
2,581 Views
DKa
Contributor II

The current circuit of the MPC5777C EVB contains a SRAM (CY7C1347G-166AXC), which samples data and adress with the rising edge of the clock. We assume that all dedicated chip selects /CS for the SRAM are active for the following described process. The MPC enables the SRAM internal adress latching process with /TS and a rising edge on the EBI clock. /TS is only active in the first clock cycle of the transaction and therefore only inside the adress phase. After the adress phase /TS is deactivated and the MPC switches to the data phase. /OE is asserted in a read cycle and /WEx is asserted while a write cycle. /OE and /WEx are also read with the rising edge of the EBI clock. 

The EVB uses a external latch to freeze the state on the muxed bus for the Pins A0 to A12 on the SRAM. The external latch gets transparent with the activation of ALE latchs after the deactivation of ALE. ALE is only activ for a duration of 6.5ns inside of the adress phase.

Our timing analysis shows that the SRAM latchs the adress internally from the MPC with the help of /TS and the rising edge of the CLK as described above. After that the internal latching mechanism inside of the SRAM is disabled and therefore it doesn't matter what state we have on the adress Pins of the SRAM. The external latch prevents a change of state on the adress pins of the SRAM while the data phase. But since the state doesn't matter the external latch is not necessary.

We tried to vaildate our assumptions with the EVB of the MPC5777C.

We set the ALE-Signal on permanent high with the help of the GPIO[299]-function on PIN P24. Therefore the external latch on the EVB is set to a permanent transparent mode. Now the adress pins of the SRAM see any effects caused by the switched muxed bus (address to data, to see any violation of address hold time). The only thing the latch can contribute in this state is a signal delay and a reduction of the capacitive load on the EBI. We verified the permanent high on ALE with an oscilloscope. Now we should have the exact configuration we proposed in our second post. Since the MPC prevents an overlap of the data and adress phase and /TS is only activ while the adress is activ on the bus, we should be able to safely latch the adress with the SRAM (doesn't matter if it is the CY7C1347G-166AXC or CY7C1441KV33) internally. As i mentioned before, the SRAM (CY7C1347G-166AXC and CY7C1441KV33) is able to latch the adress on the rising edge of the CLK, while /TS is asserted. In the end it worked over night without any issues at room temperature. Therefore i am conviced that the EBI works without an external latch.

Is there anything we don't see or we don't know, which requests the transparent latch as it is described in the EVB schematics?

0 Kudos
Reply
2,514 Views
davidtosenovjan
NXP TechSupport
NXP TechSupport

I am forwarding an answer as I got it from design:

"If the external memory is latching address at posedge CLK where TS=0 and then holding the address internally for rest of transfer (thus immune to toggling of muxed A/D on address pins during data-phase), then I think it can work ok without ALE. The comments by DKa on the site listed at bottom makes sense to me.

The ALE is there to support devices that require address to be stable, as that was the common case at the time. Also note that the relationship between TS rising edge and address-invalid is not guaranteed, so memory must use posedge CLK to latch address and not rising-edge TS. From description of memory, sounds like we are good here."

It seems there wasn't any specific reason why we have been using external latch, it was just implemented the same way how it was on device's predecessors.

Hope it helps

2,542 Views
davidtosenovjan
NXP TechSupport
NXP TechSupport

I am trying to find out the person who could evaluate this configuration and possibly could know why we have not used this. I will let you know

0 Kudos
Reply
2,729 Views
davidtosenovjan
NXP TechSupport
NXP TechSupport

As I see these memories has separated address and data pads, thus the only way how to use multiplexed mode is using of address latch device.

You would have to use external memory device that would be capable to use multiplexed address/data pins and it would be capable to latch address during address phase of transfer (i.e. to have integrated latch device). Unfortunately I am not sure whether such memory exist, I am not aware that I would ever seen such connection.

Please consult with memory manufacturer.

0 Kudos
Reply