Hi,
J-Link BASE user here (HW Version 12, J-lInk software version 7.96b). We are looking after the target consumption feature of the J-Link to screen any board/assembly-level defect at device production. For this we use the hwinfo or showhwstatus command to fetch the ITarget value. The target is powered by the J-Link.
However, we find that the value reported by those commands (and even the reported target consumption in the control panel) is all over the place. For a constant 5.7mA current drawn from the J-Link by the board (measured with a Keysight 34465A), the reported ITarget by hwinfo/showhwstatus is always 12mA. The control panel however shows different numbers: it is never steady and can go from 1mA to 10mA, as shown in the attached screenshot.
We know SEGGER states that power profiling feature is available on ULTRA/PRO version of the J-Link, but we don't need that much resolution on the target consumption. It seems however that the values reported by the J-Link looks quite odd in the first place. Possibly a bug?
Best regards,
Nicolas
J-Link BASE user here (HW Version 12, J-lInk software version 7.96b). We are looking after the target consumption feature of the J-Link to screen any board/assembly-level defect at device production. For this we use the hwinfo or showhwstatus command to fetch the ITarget value. The target is powered by the J-Link.
However, we find that the value reported by those commands (and even the reported target consumption in the control panel) is all over the place. For a constant 5.7mA current drawn from the J-Link by the board (measured with a Keysight 34465A), the reported ITarget by hwinfo/showhwstatus is always 12mA. The control panel however shows different numbers: it is never steady and can go from 1mA to 10mA, as shown in the attached screenshot.
We know SEGGER states that power profiling feature is available on ULTRA/PRO version of the J-Link, but we don't need that much resolution on the target consumption. It seems however that the values reported by the J-Link looks quite odd in the first place. Possibly a bug?
Best regards,
Nicolas