How can the initially delivered hardware/software configurations for an "evaluation" product intended to market a suite of motor control product offerings be so poor?
NONE of the current ST software directly supports the "Active" product STEVAL-STEP3202.
All I am trying to do is spin a small 24 V 400-watt BLDC CNC "spindle" motor in open-loop, sensor-less, FOC-mode (plans were to add "hall feedback" later). The evaluation board suggests that with a simple hex binary load supplied in the available product software package, that the eval board should spin up a "generic" BLDC motor using the on-board RESET, SW1, and SW2 buttons for ON/OFF functionality and the on-board potentiometer for speed command.
NONE of the pre-compiled "binary" examples for "UART" and "Potentiometer", which are directly referenced in the STEVAL-SPIN3202 documentation, actually exist in the delivered software folders as described in the product's documentation.
So much for a quick and initial evaluation BEFORE one needs to figure out this entire motor control+software SDK scenarios just to get a motor to spin.
Neither the Cube SDK, nor the ST "Motor profiler" GUI applications, support this "Active" STEVAL-SPIN3202 board.
This removes my ability to evaluate the base electrical parameters of the motor before tuning it completely with the SDK.
That is a huge failing on ST's product marketing team in my opinion.
This is after all an "EVAL" board. Getting it properly configured should not require an "inside technical contact" at ST.
I have the entire software stack loaded and running (using the Keil IDE) and can configure and download the projects's hex code to the board, but the motor whines for a bit and never actually begins to "rotate" before it soon trips out with an"Over-current" fault.
No matter what I set the over-current/shunt settings to, the small BLDC motor never rotates and always faults on "over-current".
Additionally, how does the motor control "software" know about the position of the three jumpers on the board which determine whether the board itself is in "6-step" vs "Field Oriented Control"? I seem to get different faults from the Motor Control Workbench "Monitor" application depending on the installed positions of these jumpers.
But really the question is:
**Why is this board not more directly supported in the entire suite of support software offerings?
