Basic Automotive Lighting Control with MCU

The electronics trend in automotive is continuously rising due to the demand in the market. The technological developments are now into embedded system in which the manufacturers are developing products that suits to the needs of the people. In this design, it features a automotive lighting control using an MCU with S12 CPU core, 25 MHz bus and up to 240 KB on-chip flash with Error Correction Code (ECC). The timer interface module (TIM) supports up to eight channels that provide a range of 16-bit input capture, output compare, counter and pulse accumulator functions. The on-chip SRAM is up to 12KB while 240KB for flash and 4KB for EEPROM.

The design is comprised of S9S12G240F0CLF 16-bit microcontrollers that serves as the host of the automotive lighting control. It directly communicates with MC10XS6325EK high side driver for the halogen lamps and LEDs that are used in the automotive lighting module. The capacitors connected to VBAT improve emission and immunity performances the same case on VCC while the one connected to CP is charge pump tank capacitor. The capacitor that are connected to OUT1 to OUT5 are for sustaining ESG gun and fast transient pulses that improve emission and immunity performances while the one connected to OUT6 is for sustaining reverse battery voltage. The resistors closed to CSNS pin are for output current sensing and low pass filter removing noise while the ones connected to SYNCB and smart power CSNS are pull-up resistors for the synchronization of A/D conversion. The watchdog timer IN1 to IN4 resistors helps to withstand high voltage. The 20V zener diode and a regular diode are used for the protection of the entire system from possible voltage transients with load or no load while the 5V zener diode is used to ensure 5V supply for the MCU and other components that operates within that range of voltage.

This design is also applicable to space-constrained applications, body controllers, door modules, HVAC, smart actuators, and some related industrial controlling applications with only few external components needed for modifications. It is also a good choice for automotive technological developments and experiments. Since it is targeted generic automotive applications and some intensive applications, therefore it is durable compared to a regular MCUs.


One Comments

Join the conversation!

Error! Please fill all fields.
  • HelloPrincess

    >I suspect if the front ressonpe was flat (or flatter than 3.2) and the rear shelved more then the speakers would be much easier to locate.I don’t see why that would be . . . they weren’t “easy to locate” *before* the “+” revision . . .> If the ambient sound field had even less highs from the reduced rear tweeter level, do you think it would make the recording locale seem like it was warmer or maybe even bigger? It depends on the recording, and what we’re “compensating” for. If the rolloff is mostly compensating for the overly bright image that is a result of close microphone placement (as I’ve speculated on the “user group” board) then the front tweeter should be rolled off (unless you *want* the “close to the band” sound). That’s the problem, the variation in recordings (and, of course, the variation in listening rooms). And the “ambient field” in the listening room is driven by *both* tweeters, so it can be changed by adjusting either (or both) . . . the question is whether one (always) wants to roll off the *direct* sound. >You could do what you suggest by manipulating the signal to the rear tweeter separate from the front, but it would have to be another active filter for a broad flat shelving boost.Which is why it couldn’t be implemented as an “rev” even if it were determined to be desirable. There are constraints imposed by the existing design . . .> I think JimB was interested in driving front and back tweeters differently too, but for phase coherence reasons.Of course the rear tweeter *should* have a different delay (for acoustic offset) from the front, but that would also effect whatever little dipole cancellation exists between the two, and require a separate tweeter channel that’s not implemented on the current ASP board. Compromises, compromises . . .

Looking for the latest from TI?