JN5189THN: NT3H2211's configuration register

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

JN5189THN: NT3H2211's configuration register

Jump to solution
1,402 Views
usaygo
Contributor III

Hello,

I am trying the NTAG driver source code for JN5189THN and I have a question about the address of the configuration register.

In the code ntag_defines.h,ntag_driver.c from the zigbee coordinator example:

[In ntag_defines.h]
#define NTAG_MEM_BLOCK_CONFIGURATION_2k 0x7A <<-this is activated
#define NTAG_MEM_BLOCK_CONFIGURATION_1k 0x3A

[In ntag_drive.c]
BOOL NTAG_ReadConfiguration(NTAG_HANDLE_T ntag, uint8_t reg, uint8_t *val)
{
#ifdef NTAG_2k <<-- this is defined
    uint8_t config = NTAG_MEM_BLOCK_CONFIGURATION_2k;
#elif NTAG_1k
    uint8_t config = NTAG_MEM_BLOCK_CONFIGURATION_1k;
#endif
...
}

But in the datasheet of NT3H2211, NT3H2111_2211 Rev3.5-7 May 2019: Table.7 NTAG I2C plus 2k memory organization from the I2C perspective, the configuration register is at 0x3Ah.

When we actually read block 0x3Ah, it looks like the value of the configuration register.

BLOCK 0x3A: 01 37 f8 48 08 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

 

Is the #define above a mistake for 0x3A?

 

The block 0x7A is considered to be in the latter half of user memory from the NT3H2211 datasheet, and the block is tested on my desk which could be read/written in any without a problem.

Thank you for your help.

0 Kudos
1 Solution
1,328 Views
Ricardo_Zamora
NXP TechSupport
NXP TechSupport

Hi,

 

Hope you are doing well. Yes. For both versions (1k and 2k) of the NTAG I2C Plus the configuration registers address is 3Ah (from I2C perspective).

 

Best Regards,

Ricardo

View solution in original post

0 Kudos
2 Replies
1,329 Views
Ricardo_Zamora
NXP TechSupport
NXP TechSupport

Hi,

 

Hope you are doing well. Yes. For both versions (1k and 2k) of the NTAG I2C Plus the configuration registers address is 3Ah (from I2C perspective).

 

Best Regards,

Ricardo

0 Kudos
1,316 Views
usaygo
Contributor III

It'll be great that this confusion is removed from sample/driver code

Thank you very much!

0 Kudos