PSoC™ 4 Forum Discussions

CY8C4045FNIを使っています。

Cypress PSoC Creator を使ってデバイスのタッチ センサーをデバッグしました。 デバッグが
終わったので、Arudino 環境の I2C でタッチセンサー認証データを読み出したいのですが

SlaveAddressとRegisterAddressでのAccessではなくBaseAddressにてアクセスするようなのですが

指定方法が表示されません。

どうすればよいのか教えてください。

Hi Infineon.

This thread is additional question regarding the content of the link below.

https://community.infineon.com/t5/PSoC-4/Regarding-PSoC4-IMO-accuracy-depending-on-temperature-conditions-NOF/td-p/711053

Could you please let us know about “IMO AC specifications” of table 32 in PSoC 4100S Max DS?

https://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon-CY8C41xx_PSoC_4_MCU_PSoC_4100S_Max_Based_on_Arm_Cortex_-M0_CPU-DataSheet-v06_00-EN.pdf?fileId=8ac78c8c83cd30810183fc2ad1424e75

Both SID223 and SID223B values are ±2.0%.

Case1)

SID223 temperature range is from -40deg to 85deg.

In other words, IMO accuracy at -40deg can be considered to be ±2.0%.

Case2)

SID223B temperature range is from -30deg to 105deg.

In other words, IMO accuracy at 105deg can be considered to be ±2.0%.

In other words, when considering Case1) and Case2) together, IMO accuracy can be considered to be ±2.0% in the range of -40deg to 105deg.

However, IMO accuracy of SID223A with the same temperature range(-40deg to 105deg) is ±2.5%.

Even though the temperature range is the same, there is discordance in the spec value.

What should I think about this?

Because the word "parts" is purposely used in datasheet, device parts with a temperature range of SID223A cannot be referenced to values in other specifications(for example, SID223C, SID223D etc), even if the temperature range during actual use is narrower than the product specification.

=========================================================

At 0°C to 85°C, for enhanced IMO extended industrial temperature range parts

=========================================================

Is the above understanding more correct than the previous Infineon’s answer(below link)?

(When asked about IMO accuracy of device parts with temperature range of -40deg to 105deg(SID223A), the only answer is “IMO accuracy is ±2.5%.”, regardless of the actual temperature conditions?)

https://community.infineon.com/t5/PSoC-4/Regarding-PSoC4-IMO-accuracy-depending-on-temperature-conditions-NOF/td-p/711053

Best Regards.

YuMa

Hello. I have an IRQ for my serial device that looks similar this:

CY_ISR(uart_isr) {    
    
    if (h_UART_CHECK_INTR_RX_MASKED(h_UART_INTR_RX_NOT_EMPTY)) 
    {
        uint32_t data = h_UART_UartGetByte();
        uint8_t byte = data & 0xFF;
        
        // Ignore any errors.
        if ((data & 0xFFFFFF00) != 0) {
            return;
        }
        queue_data(&queue, byte);
        h_UART_ClearRxInterruptSource(h_UART_INTR_RX_NOT_EMPTY);
    }
}

  But I get an issue where I will occasionally get an underflow error. Which is to say on the `((data & 0xFFFFFF00) != 0` will be true. It is not a framing or parity error, but the underflow error. But I don't understand how that could happen since I am specifically checking for the FIFO not being empty. Alright, so I made an alternative.

CY_ISR(uart_isr) {    
    
    if (h_UART_CHECK_INTR_RX_MASKED(h_UART_INTR_RX_NOT_EMPTY)) 
    {
        for (uint32_t count = h_UART_SpiUartGetRxBufferSize; count > 0; count--) {
            uint32_t data = h_UART_UartGetByte();
            uint8_t byte = data & 0xFF;
        
            // Skip errors
            if ((data & 0xFFFFFF00) != 0) {
                continue;
            }
            queue_data(&queue, byte);
        }
        h_UART_ClearRxInterruptSource(h_UART_INTR_RX_NOT_EMPTY);
    }
}

And this ends up being even worse somehow. Count will be a positive number, but then it will skip each byte received.

Basically what I'm asking if, how can it be possible for

h_UART_CHECK_INTR_RX_MASKED(h_UART_INTR_RX_NOT_EMPTY)

to be true, but then there be an underflow error in the byte read? I did a test and every error it received was an underflow. If I inspect the values that get received upon this underflow, some are actual data sent (aka not an underflow) and some are just junk.

This has been a thorn in my side for months but so far my solution has been "about one in fifty messages fail for some reason," but that is getting old.

For PSOC4,we will design touch buttons.

As for the touch button, we are thinking of using transparent electrodes such asITOfilm to pass light.

We believe that it will be a one-sided pattern design from the viewpoint of cost.

If you look at the manufacturer's materials,

https://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon-AN64846_Getting_Started_with_CapSense-ApplicationNotes-v26_00-JA.pdf?fileId=8ac78c8c7cdc391c017d071c3aba214f

└　3.8.15 CAPSENSEsystem design for single-layer printed circuit boards

Please contact us for details.

Regarding the above, could you send us any design guidelines for touch switches on single-layer boards?