On 05/02/13 17:28, Paul Fertser wrote: > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 04:42:53PM +0000, ger...@openocd.zylin.com wrote: >> It has been seen on some stm32 targets that the flash size register that >> is probed by the driver may contain an invalid size. > > Not only that, I've been told at ##stm32 that all of the STM32F103C8T6 > (e.g. as found on ST-Links) have 128K flash instead of 64K. So it's > technically valid but limited for marketing reasons at least on some > chips, here's when this change will come useful too :) >
That is not uncommon for all flash/silicon based parts, seen many things like this from flash to diodes. The mask for the max flash size is done first and the other variants are either ones that failed memory tests at the higher addresses or parts that are fully working just marked as having smaller flash size. And for diodes as an example 1N4007 is quite often the part manufactured, the lower voltages are parts with higher leakage or parts that are 1000v rated but remarked. The issue is which is good/bad/remarked. As the volume for the part increases then they will make the other masks. Cheers Spen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 and get the hardware for free! Learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb _______________________________________________ OpenOCD-devel mailing list OpenOCD-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel
