Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #31525
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: Another STM32F103 clone? |
| Date | 2023-01-09 23:23 +0000 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <tpi7l4$qe3$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <tpddc3$1565$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
> I have bought few Blue Pills on Aliexpress. I expected to receive
> boards with some of known clones. But what I get does not look
> like any clone that I have heard of:
> - Cortex M4 with no FPU
> - 32k RAM
> - 128k flash
> - set of devices like STM32F103C8T6
>
> Chip seems to be resonable compatible, but I noticed notable
> difference in I2C peripherial: bit 14 in OAR1 (own address register 1)
> seem to be stuck at 1 (this is reserved bit which in original chips
> is 0). Peripherial address decoding seem to be partial, I can access
> registers at address incremented by 0x100, 0x200 or 0x300. Similarly,
> RAM shows in 128k range, incrementing address by 32k modifies the
> same memory.
>
> Most clones seem to use Cortex-M3. GD has GD32E103 with Cortex-M4,
> but GD docs claim extra features, apparently not present in this chip.
>
> Does anybody heard of/seen chip with features above?
Info on internet mentions about 15 diffrenet Chinese manufacturers
cloning STM chips. One of them is Flashchip. My chip seem to
match id of FCM32F103C:
(gdb) x/2xw 0x1FFFF7C0
0x1ffff7c0: 0x46433332 0x0046103c
which appears in FSM32F103C migration note. This is one of few
F103 compatible processors with M4 core, has 128kB flash. The
migration note claims 20 kB RAM, my test indicate 32kB. More
precisely, my test routine wrote to words from 0x20000400 to
0x20008000 and checked that written value is there. This was
repeated for two different values. So I have rather strong
indication that chip really have 32kB RAM (ok, test only covered
31kB, but first 1kB contained test program which apparently
run correctly). Maybe manufactures claim 20kB because this
is all what STM32F103CB has.
--
Waldek Hebisch
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Another STM32F103 clone? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2023-01-08 03:30 +0000
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2023-01-08 11:38 -0800
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2023-01-09 03:06 +0000
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2023-01-09 23:23 +0000
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2023-01-09 17:38 -0700
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2023-01-13 02:28 +0000
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2023-01-15 20:09 -0800
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2023-01-17 00:43 +0000
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2023-01-16 19:39 -0700
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2023-01-16 19:44 -0700
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2023-01-16 21:07 -0800
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2023-01-17 06:04 +0000
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2023-01-17 00:10 -0700
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-17 13:48 +0100
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2023-01-17 17:05 +0000
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-17 19:42 +0100
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2023-01-17 11:07 -0800
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2023-01-15 23:47 -0700
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2023-01-17 05:41 +0000
Re: Another STM32F103 clone? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2023-01-17 00:04 -0700
csiph-web