On 19 September 2013 12:26, Olivier Tomaz wrote:
> The change is ok for me.
>
> I've not done the same way, but please not the stm32l is not the only
> platform in openocd which have 0x00 flash erased value. The stm32f seems to
> have the same trouble. I'm awaiting my support answer from ST to con
The change is ok for me.
I've not done the same way, but please not the stm32l is not the only
platform in openocd which have 0x00 flash erased value. The stm32f seems to
have the same trouble. I'm awaiting my support answer from ST to confirm
this.
Have a nice day,
Cheers,
Topaz
On Thu, Sep 19
On 19 September 2013 11:00, Olivier Tomaz wrote:
>>
>> Long term padding the image sections does need sorting out. However
>> cannot see that being for a while so guess we need to add an option to
>> set the default erased value.
>
>
> What I did, I've just added a field to each flash_driver to se
Dear,
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Spencer Oliver wrote:
> On 19 September 2013 09:14, Olivier Tomaz wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've been working on stm32l1 for a while now, and I'm just struggled by a
> > problem. It is first needed to say that the flash erased value on this
> arch
> >
On 19 September 2013 09:14, Olivier Tomaz wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been working on stm32l1 for a while now, and I'm just struggled by a
> problem. It is first needed to say that the flash erased value on this arch
> is 0x00 not 0xFF.
>
I did not realise this, but just checked and the erased va
Hi folks,
I've been working on stm32l1 for a while now, and I'm just struggled by a
problem. It is first needed to say that the flash erased value on this arch
is 0x00 not 0xFF.
1/ start oocd
2/ start gdb
3/ perform monitor flash erase of the full flash
4/ x /256xb 0x8024B00 => full of 00's, this
