Part Number: MSP432P401R
Tool/software: Code Composer Studio
Hi,
We have encountered a strange issue programming a custom board based on the 64-pin MSP432P401RIRGCR. Initial development of the firmware was completed on the 100-pin MSP432 launchpad with no issues. After receiving proto boards, we confirmed the boards were functional by programming them using CCS with a standard TI example: gpio_toggle_output_MSP_EXP432P401R_nortos_gcc
However, after we booted our custom firmware running TI-RTOS onto the proto boards, we have seemingly bricked the micro and are unable to factory reset the devices.
The sequence of steps that led to the failure were:
1. Custom firmware was loaded via CCS debug option
2. After successfully being programmed, standard resume / terminate options in CCS pop up as normal, indicating program is ready to run.
3. After selecting resume, we get the error shown below in the console after a few seconds
![]()
At this point the board cannot be factory reset by the standard procedure. Once you select the Target Configuration (Launch selected configuration) -> show all cores and then select "Connect", you get the following error:
![]()
However, when you test the JTAG connection via target configuration, the JTAG integrity test succeeds which means the XDS110 still sees the MSP432.
![]()
As far as I am aware, there are no special steps required within the project to port the firmware from a 100-pin to a 64-pin MSP432. Is this correct? Both the launchpad and the MSP432P401RIRGCR have the same amount of Flash and RAM.
I have also attached our MSP_EXP432P401R.c/MSP_EXP432P401R.h files which maps the hardware on the custom board to our hardware abstracted firmware.
(Please visit the site to view this file)(Please visit the site to view this file)
So far, we have encountered the same bricked board failure mode with 2 proto-boards. Our schematic is based on a previous custom designed board we made with the 100-pin micro and can be provided via IM.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions how to proceed?
Thanks,
Robert