[参考译文] TMS570LC4357：TMS570LC4357 PBIST：明确 ROM[1：0]与 ALGO 的优先级 (SPNU563A 表 9-14 / 9-15)

Hi Jagadish,

Thanks for the explanation.

I still see one ambiguity that is important for us from a safety perspective (TMS570LC4357, application PBIST):

1) Is ROM = 0x0 a *supported* and *fully specified* configuration for application code on TMS570LC4357, or should it be considered "not supported / internal only"?

   - The TRM (SPNU563A, Table 9-14) describes ROM=0 as "No information is used from ROM".
   - However, from your answer and from Example 9.6.1 behavior, it sounds like ROM=0 cannot be used to run a valid PBIST test because the controller still depends on ROM metadata to interpret ALGO and RINFOx.

   Can you please confirm explicitly:
   - On TMS570LC4357, is there any valid PBIST test configuration where ROM=0 is intended to be used by application software?
   - Or should ROM=0 be treated as an unsupported mode (e.g. only for manufacturing / internal test), and thus not used in customer software?

2) For safety-related documentation and reviews, we want to use a clear rule like:
   - "For application PBIST, always set ROM = 0x3. Other ROM values are not to be used."

   Is this rule correct and acceptable from TI’s point of view for TMS570LC4357?

3) Finally, could TI please clarify (or confirm) the intended precedence in the TRM:
   - When ROM indicates "algorithm information from ROM" (ROM=2 or 3), ALGO is still the *enable mask* that selects which algorithms to run, and ROM merely defines those algorithms (i.e., ROM does not override ALGO selection). Is this correct?

If possible, it would be very helpful if this could be clarified in an app note or a TRM update/errata, since this affects how we justify our PBIST configuration in safety documentation.

Best regards,
Mehmet Can