use S32K314 DFlash to simulate EEPROM

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

use S32K314 DFlash to simulate EEPROM

645 Views
chaofan
Contributor I

    Hello everyone! At present, the API of C40_ip component is used for the DFlash erase operation in the project. However, I found from the manual that the DFlash and PFlash of S32K314 have a lifespan of only 1000 cycles for sector erase. So I am eager to know how to use NXP approved EEEPROM drivers.

chaofan_0-1763620313882.png

    And most importantly, all the components used in this project belong to 'Drivers', not' MCAL '. I would like to know what solutions are currently available to increase the lifespan requirements for DFlaser erase and write cycles in the project.


    Looking forward to receiving a response from the community.

0 Kudos
Reply
7 Replies

614 Views
davidtosenovjan
NXP TechSupport
NXP TechSupport

Solution for your issue is to use our EEPROM emulation drivers that are part of RTD driver package (FEE driver).

0 Kudos
Reply

559 Views
chaofan
Contributor I

Thank you very much for your reply!

chaofan_0-1764041814882.png
At present, I can only find the FEE component in the "MCAL" component, but all existing projects are developed based on the "Driver" component, mainly due to this contradiction.

0 Kudos
Reply

501 Views
davidtosenovjan
NXP TechSupport
NXP TechSupport

Curent RTD version is 6.0.0.

Example and used drivers are following:

davidtosenovjan_0-1764266629859.png

davidtosenovjan_1-1764266641759.png

 

 

 

0 Kudos
Reply

477 Views
chaofan
Contributor I

Thank you very much for your answer!
I successfully found this demo in the IDE, and I would like to know if the components of "MCAL" and "Driver" can be mixed together?

chaofan_0-1764290904416.png

If possible, is it feasible to use the three fee components from "MCAL" instead of the "C40_ip" component in "Driver" as shown in the demo? Will there be compatibility issues?

0 Kudos
Reply

444 Views
davidtosenovjan
NXP TechSupport
NXP TechSupport

It is not recommended, you could choose one of these layers.

0 Kudos
Reply

392 Views
chaofan
Contributor I

Thank you for your reply!

So to use the functionality of EEEPROM, is it currently recommended to fully use the "MCAL" component for implementation? For projects that have already developed most of the functionality and fully use the "Driver" component, the workload of porting is a bit heavy.....

0 Kudos
Reply

330 Views
davidtosenovjan
NXP TechSupport
NXP TechSupport

I think it is basically up to you. Fee component will run above flash sections as defined so you can possibly use other section with IP layer, but it is up to you to guarantee coherency.

0 Kudos
Reply