FS65 Fault Error Counter incrementation

[razvan_simtion]

Hello again,

I have a question regarding the incrementation of the fault error counter. Currently I am working with the FS65 in debug mode, after a couple of second in my code I change the answer to the LFSR in order to get a wdg error caused by data refresh, so far so good, the error counter increases until max as expected and after it restarts from 0 and so on. The problem is that the fault error counter does not increase, I have decided to change the WD_IMPACT_1:0 in  INIT_SF_IMPACT register from 00 (no effect on RSTB) to 01 (RSTB asserted if WD error counter reaches max val) in this formula the fault error counter increases when the error counter reaches its max val.

Any ideas regarding this issue? since according to the documentation the fault error counter should increase in any situation if the WD error counter = its max val not only with the workaround described above.

Also, I have noticed that I cannot read precisely when the error counter reaches its max value… for example if the max value is set to 6 the reading of WD_COUNTER register gives: 0x0F00, 0x0F40, 0x0F80 and then it jumps directly to 0: 0x0F00 . Can you confirm this is normal situation and it’s normal that I can’t read 0x0FC0 as max value, since in the manual it is stated that:” From 0 to 5 (6 generate an increase of the FLT_ERR_CNT and this counter is reset to 0)”

Thank you in advance!

Kind Regards,

Razvan Simtion

[TomasVaverka · Accepted solution]

Hello Razvan,

As shown in chapter 6.5.3 of the datasheet, the fault error counter is increased in two situations:

When you set WD_IMPACT_1:0 = 0b00, there is no RSTB /FS0B assertion when the watchdog error counter reaches the max value, so the fault error counter will not increase.

As for your second question, yes, the watchdog error counter does not show 6 as it goes to 0 when the max value is reached.

Best regards,

Tomas

[razvan_simtion]

Hello Tomas,

Thank you for the clarification. 

I have read the documentation and what made me doubt was the section: