Bug #4431

TC1 (TC2050) pin 4 should connect to VDD network, not VDD_3V3

Added by laforge 11 months ago. Updated 6 months ago.

In Progress
Target version:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:


Spec Reference:


18:33 < horizon> LaF0rge: it looks like there's a bug at TC1 pin 4, the net name should be VDD instead of 
18:33 < horizon> thats why its not connected and does not power my SWD adaptor
19:35 <@LaF0rge> horizon: and yes, you appear to be correct
openocd.cfg openocd.cfg 437 Bytes roh, 03/01/2020 09:21 PM
openocd_flash_bootloader.cfg openocd_flash_bootloader.cfg 203 Bytes roh, 03/01/2020 09:21 PM 53 Bytes roh, 03/01/2020 09:21 PM


  • change schematics / board design
  • rework boards?


#1 Updated by laforge 11 months ago

I'm a bit surprised to see issues like this. Shouldn't the ERC of Eagle catch a network with only one connection? How can we produce something like that? Indeed, it does' But The "Only one pin on net VDD_3V3" was "approved" :(

Also, AFAIR roh did see the CPUID via SWD in OpenOCD? That might be related to different SWD adapter?

#2 Updated by laforge 11 months ago

  • Checklist item change schematics / board design added
  • Checklist item rework boards? added
  • Status changed from New to In Progress
  • % Done changed from 0 to 50
commit 617288296fc07df28753944d9299e00a7cd9b931 (HEAD -> master)
Author: Harald Welte <>
Date:   Sun Mar 1 19:41:00 2020 +0100

    clock-generator: Fix VDD connection of TC2050 SWD connector

    Closes: OS#4431

#3 Updated by roh 11 months ago

i had some issue with some jtag intefacees working, others not.
i think versaloon worked in the end.

here is the openocd config which i think i used for this board

#4 Updated by roh 7 months ago

i don't think this can be reworked properly. the 'unconnected' pads are just that.. pads with no trace. hard to rework a wire there so it would contact reliably to a relatively blunt pogo hitting the joint from above..

#5 Updated by mschramm 6 months ago

laforge wrote:

shouldn't the ERC of Eagle catch a network with only one connection?

My suspicion is that the ERC was made before these signals where named reasonably, and in a subsequent ERC, a generic auto-named signal throwing a warning, tends to get neglected... Lesson learned here: give all relevant signals a proper naming before ERC.

Also available in: Atom PDF

Add picture from clipboard (Maximum size: 48.8 MB)