<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/cfs-file/__key/system/syndication/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Peripheral access - failure analysis</title><link>https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/f/nordic-q-a/128396/peripheral-access---failure-analysis</link><description>Hi All, In the NRF54L15 SoC, the main ARM core and the co-processor RISC core share the same set of peripherals even though both the cores can have separate sections of RAM and Flash memories. So, can the two cores have separate memory mapping for all</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Community 13</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 13:38:30 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/f/nordic-q-a/128396/peripheral-access---failure-analysis" /><item><title>RE: Peripheral access - failure analysis</title><link>https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/thread/567844?ContentTypeID=1</link><pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 13:38:30 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">137ad170-7792-4731-bb38-c0d22fbe4515:915bcb21-16a9-4ab1-8d6f-1672626131e2</guid><dc:creator>Elfving</dc:creator><description>[quote user="raam"]then I would want the main ARM core to take over and gracefully complete (or atleast exit from) the operation.[/quote]
&lt;p&gt;Interesting. I don&amp;#39;t think there are any HW features that helps this exact use-case, but this could be communicated between the cores and&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://nrfconnectdocs.nordicsemi.com/ncs/latest/nrf/app_dev/device_guides/coprocessors/fault_handling.html"&gt;we have some sw frameworks for this&lt;/a&gt;.&amp;nbsp;The most tempting idea to me would be to use a watchdog, to make the M33 take over when the flpr runs into an issue.&amp;nbsp;But I can&amp;#39;t really imagine how moving control to the main cpu would solve this potential issue, but the possibility is there I guess. I think whether this would work would depend on the peripheral, but I have seen some examples of two cores accessing one peripheral.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
[quote user="raam"]Also, another query is, if the peripherals are memory mapped, if there is any data / memory corruption in the memory map area, what is the effect on the access to the peripherals ?&lt;br /&gt;[/quote]
&lt;p&gt;I guess what exact effect depends on the problem. There is tamper protection and other security features on the 54L, &lt;a href="https://academy.nordicsemi.com/courses/nrf54l-series-express-course/lessons/lesson-4-security-features/topic/hardware-isolation/"&gt;though they might be a bit more SW-focused&lt;/a&gt; than something like &lt;span&gt;hardware domain isolation and separate memory mapping for each core.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I think I&amp;#39;d answer your question better if you could be even clearer about the use-case though. I can also make the case private if you prefer. Zephyr/NCS can be a bit strict about the SW architecture setup, but it typically has features needed to address whatever you are concerned about.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://academy.nordicsemi.com/courses/nrf54l-series-express-course/lessons/lesson-3-peripherals-and-system-components/"&gt;Lesson 3 and 4 here might interest you, and clear things up.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regards,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Elfving&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>RE: Peripheral access - failure analysis</title><link>https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/thread/567717?ContentTypeID=1</link><pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 13:23:04 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">137ad170-7792-4731-bb38-c0d22fbe4515:31f06d35-8183-4957-9c90-1a4f7897013c</guid><dc:creator>raam</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;So, if we assume that I map couple of peripherals like ADC and I2C to the RISC core, and in the field, during real-time operational use case, one of the peripherals fails ( like abnormal behavior) , then I would want the main ARM core to take over and gracefully complete (or atleast exit from) the operation.Is that possible in this SoC ?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also, another query is, if the peripherals are memory mapped, if there is any data / memory corruption in the memory map area, what is the effect on the access to the peripherals ?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thanks Elfving for your prompt response !&amp;nbsp; Looking forward to your inputs to the above concerns...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>RE: Peripheral access - failure analysis</title><link>https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/thread/567716?ContentTypeID=1</link><pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 13:11:11 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">137ad170-7792-4731-bb38-c0d22fbe4515:1a928d7e-04a0-4de4-9c5a-9ed10f3d89d8</guid><dc:creator>Elfving</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That is an interesting question. I think it has the same&amp;nbsp;&lt;span&gt;memory mapping for the peripherals, and it is rather up to the user to make sure that there wont really be a conflict. Do you have a specific concern in mind?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Regards,&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Elfving&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>