PSoC™ 6 Forum Discussions

Hi,

we are developing an application with the CY8C6247BZI-D54 and I couldn’t find a clear answer for the following, or I found contradictory information:

1. Can we reset ONLY 1 core and keep the other one operating in normal power mode? If yes, which core is possible to reset alone, CM0+ or CM4?

2. Assuming it is possible to reset only 1 core, is it possible to “freeze” the GPIOs (or at least a few GPIOs) such that they keep the state while that core is reset?

Thank you

Hello,

I wanted to use the Smart IO feature on PORT 9  of PSoC 6. But I am using only three pins of it and configured it in Smart IO Configurator.

Can I used the remaining pins of PORT 9 as normal GPIO pins ?

Best Regards,

Vivek

Hi,
I believe it is not mentioned as a sensitive part of the design, but just to make sure, I wanted to know if it could be problematic to cross i2c or spi lines with the CIntX ground line in a capsense design (I would guess it is okay, since even crossing with capsense sensor traces is mentioned to be okay)

Thanks!

In ce218136_eink_capsense_rtos example,

an error appears in capsense_switchpowermodecallback for a mode that is not in the parameters

of the cy_stc_syspm_callback_params_t struct.

How do I solve this problem?

IDE : Psoc Creator 4.4

F/W Date : Recently Ver ( https://www.cypress.com/documentation/development-kitsboards/psoc-6-ble-pioneer-kit-cy8ckit-062-ble  )

I have fairly large mbed project (mbed-os 6.5) and I am adding power savings using the CY8CPROTO_062_4343W kit.

According to the spec, SerialBase objects lock deepsleep. However, by calling ::enable_input(false) and ::enable_output(false), the comments indicate that deep sleep is unblocked, as SerialBase unlocks it. It also deinits the serial API.

Here is the problem in a simple example:

#include "mbed.h"

UnbufferedSerial pc(USBTX, USBRX);

int

main()

{

    printf("Serial enabled, disabling.\n");

    pc.sync();

    pc.enable_input(false);

    pc.enable_output(false);

    pc.enable_input(true);

    pc.enable_output(true);

    printf("Serial enabled, this should be visible.\n");

}

Hi.

I need a 1 MHz counter and thought it would be a simple matter to use two TCPWM counters to create it. One counter would use a scaled clock at 1 MHz and count up to UINT32_MAX continuously, while the second would count overflow events from the first counter.

Setting up the first counter is trivial, but I can't get the second counter to do what I want.

Both counters share the same clock, which runs at 1 MHz.

Here is the configuration for counter 1:

Here's the configuration for counter 2:

I initialize the counters like this:

// configure microsecond low word timer cy_stc_tcpwm_counter_config_t cstccCan1usLTimerConfig = TMR_CAN_1US_L_config; cstccCan1usLTimerConfig.startInputMode = CY_TCPWM_INPUT_LEVEL; cstccCan1usLTimerConfig.startInput = CY_TCPWM_INPUT_1; cstccCan1usLTimerConfig.countInputMode = CY_TCPWM_INPUT_LEVEL; cstccCan1usLTimerConfig.countInput = CY_TCPWM_INPUT_1; Cy_TCPWM_Counter_Init( TMR_CAN_1US_L_HW, TMR_CAN_1US_L_NUM, &cstccCan1usLTimerConfig ); // configure microsecond high word timer cy_stc_tcpwm_counter_config_t cstccCan1usHTimerConfig = TMR_CAN_1US_H_config; cstccCan1usHTimerConfig.startInputMode = CY_TCPWM_INPUT_LEVEL; cstccCan1usHTimerConfig.startInput = CY_TCPWM_INPUT_1; Cy_TCPWM_Counter_Init( TMR_CAN_1US_H_HW, TMR_CAN_1US_H_NUM, &cstccCan1usHTimerConfig ); Cy_TCPWM_Counter_SetCounter( TMR_CAN_1US_L_HW, TMR_CAN_1US_L_NUM, UINT32_MAX - ( uint32_t ) 10e6 ); Cy_TCPWM_Counter_SetCounter( TMR_CAN_1US_H_HW, TMR_CAN_1US_H_NUM, 0 ); Cy_TCPWM_Counter_Enable( TMR_CAN_1US_L_HW, TMR_CAN_1US_L_NUM ); Cy_TCPWM_Counter_Enable( TMR_CAN_1US_H_HW, TMR_CAN_1US_H_NUM );

I initialize the low-word timer such that it overflows 10 second after it's started. The result is that the low-word counter 1 counts microseconds, but the high-word counter 2 never changes from its initial value of 0.

I've tried a number of variations on this theme, but haven't found the magic configuration yet.

What am I missing?

Thanks,

-Nick

Hi there,

we're developing sensors for environmental analysis. We found that the UDB components provide exactly what we need to quickly prototype controls of our instrument. It is the perfect solution for our needs and the psoc creator visual composer even allows me to contribute (not an embedded dev).

Based on discussions I have read about the lack of UDB support in ModusToolbox and potentially dropping UDB support altogether, I am not really sure if we should invest the effort to switch over to psoc and get good in UDB design. I mean it's great that the community offers export tools for import of UDB components from Creator to Modus, but feels risky to base our product development  on the work of a couple of enthusiasts.

Will UDB support be around in 5 years or so? Will it be a first class feature? From our perspective it's the one really awesome thing that differentiates the psoc family from all the other microcontrollers out there.

If you were to design a sensor instrument with tight timing requirements / ion shutters that really benefit from tight hardware implementations, would you choose psoc as your production platform today?

Thanks!

Dirk