The death (or reclassification) of popular STM32F103R6T6 !

[jj]

Posted on October 23, 2008 at 02:14

The death (or reclassification) of popular STM32F103R6T6 !

[jj]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:47

Ai carumba! Just after we have sorted out this Rev Y - and received an ''in-stock'' fairly priced quote for 500 pcs - I find today to my horror that there appears ''no more'' my/your STM32F103R6T6! (32KB device)

In its place now comes (heir apparent) STM32F102R6T6 - I think/hope! What this means for Rev sanctity I can only guess - does Rev Y apply for these low density devices??? What if the only change is a part no - surely then we will need a Rev Y for a ''brand new'' STM32F102 !!! Good grief. We were taught that one sells with comfort & convenience. (nice to have some features/functions too) This Rev and now part reclassification is well beyond my powers - I'm sure my local disty and ST rep will be ''delighted'' to receive my latest call... (I wouldn't take my call) STOne-32 - please, please H E L P ....

[jj]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:47

Further detail - the ''demotion'' of STM32F103R6T6:

''STMicroelectronics has further extended options for users of its STM32 MCUs, by introducing new devices with 16 Kbyte Flash density.'' This post nicely, recently introduced ST's new ''Low Density'' line. There is nothing in this post to suggest that earlier, ''Medium Density'' devices would be ''co-mingled'' within this new classification. And indeed this is what happened to the STM32F103R6T6. All 32KB parts - previously grouped among ''Medium Density'' appear to have quietly, suddenly been reclassified and regrouped under ''Low Density.'' Some may have followed the earlier, detailed, Rev Y issue. ST clearly stated that Rev Y ''only'' affects ''Medium Density'' devices - now I am not so sure! STOne-32: As STM32F103R6T6 has migrated this leads to 2 concerns: a) Do ''Low Density'' devices fall under any Rev Y requirement? b) The freshly migrated STM32F103R6T6 must retain its Rev Y status - even though it is ''now'' classified a ''Low Density'' part. Is this correct? My firm may be hyper-sensitive to this ''unannounced'' reclassification as we have just ordered 500 pcs - with an EAU of ~10K. The ST Rep and disty have - I am certain - no knowledge of today's discovery. I hope that this post will save others concern & discomfort. As always the devil is in the details... [ This message was edited by: jj.sprague on 09-10-2008 06:33 ]

[lanchon]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:47

hey, take a deep breath and count to ten...

now read this post by ST1: ''Hi Bruno, All STM32 revisions available WW so far : (B,Z,Y): Medium Density Z : High Density A : Low Density Include only one CM3 Core version which is ''r1p1-01rel0''.'' 🙂 good thing I don't use low density... I didn't really understand this post at the time but now I'll make an effort; apparently your 32K parts are rev-A now, which is a good thing seeing that the alphabet is so short and that we're all into this green recycling fad, I mean why not reuse the A label? yes, yes, sure, there were a few engineering samples around, but these were all Medium Density devices... ehemmm... get it? I hope I made things more clear for you. :p

[jj]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:47

@lanchon-

Your post is so comforting/clarifying - I'm tempted to offer a $100 prize in ''Reverse!'' @STOne-32- You are blameless - the purchase of a device should ''not'' be this much of a roller-coaster. My past firm went public e

[16-32micros]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:47

Hi jj.sprague,

Here is revision history for all STM32 lines. (B,Z,Y): Medium Density Performance & Medium Density Access Z : High Density Performance & High Density Access A : Low Density Performance, Low Density Access , Low Density USB Access , Medium Density USB Access. All new Low-density ( either performance or Access) 32K of flash end with an A in the marking in addition to the Revision Marking ''A''. Let me know it is enough clear. Cheers, STOne-32. [ This message was edited by: STOne-32 on 10-10-2008 21:42 ]

[jj]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:47

Hi STOne-32,

Thank you - always comforting to see your posts. The part my firm has most concern with is: STM32F103R6T6 (32KB, Perf.) And - forgive me - the ''reclassification'' of all 32KB parts from Medium Density to Low Density causes me (and clients) grave concern! Recall that we use IAR 5.20 (have several paid systems). Per our past forum correspondence - my firm's Purchase Order specified that only Rev ''Y'' would be accepted. And I have been advised that those parts have recently shipped. Today's welcome post seems to state that my order of Rev ''Y'' STM32F103R6T6 was ''incorrect'' - that in fact I should have ordered Rev ''A!'' However since (as I stated in my earlier, supporting posts) that only until recently the 32KB parts were Medium Density - I am totally confused. Especially so when a volume purchase may not work - and cause needless delay and re-work. I know that none of this change is your doing. As I stated - the announcement on this forum stared that 16KB parts were Low Density - ''absolutely NO guidance was presented stating that 32KB parts would be also so classified!'' So - are my ''in shipment'' STM32F103R6T6 Rev ''Y'' correct for IAR 5.20? Or - due to the 32KB unannounced reclassification - must I return these parts and wait for Rev ''A'' to be released? I have NO idea...

[jj]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:47

more STOne-32,

Just off the phone with investor group - they asked that I provide this extra data: Very recently ''Medium Density'' Datasheet 13587 was updated to Rev 9 - September 2008. This was how I discovered that STM32F103R6T6 (32KB, Perf.) had been reclassified to Low Density. I have on file 13587 Rev 8 - dated July 2008 - which included STM32F103R6T6 as Medium Density. Our firm is growing quickly - we have boards with all components ready for automatic placement/reflow - and neither my investors, clients nor myself know, ''which STM32F103R6T6 Rev is proper?'' Others are made uncertain by this confusion - I would prefer to wait - if necessary - so that you are fully confident with your guidance. The very recent ''reclassification'' of STM32F103R6T6 - from Med to Low Density - has caused what we believe our legitimate confusion...

[16-32micros]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:47

Hi,

I have difficulty to catch your case ? o Did You received ''STM32F103R6T6'' or not yet ? o if not yet, will be receive most probably only ''STM32F103R6T6A'' revA which is a new silicon compared to previous medium density device with an improved consumption in run and Low power modes. Please let me know step by step your problem. Thx. STOne-32.

[jj]

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:47

Hi back,

Thank you. Parts are ''in transit'' - having shipped from disty earlier this week. I have not seen nor received the parts yet. My P.O. specified STM32F103R6T6 Rev ''Y'' only - as you/ST had advised was appropriate for Medium Density for use with IAR 5.20. It took almost a month for disty + ST Rep to resolve the Rev ''Y'' issue. I have been advised that the parts which shipped were Rev ''Y'' - but I can't confirm till parts arrive. I hope that you follow our emphasis of the ''reclassification'' confusion. It appears now that you are stating that, Low Density STM32F103R6T6 has certain performance advantages over older, Med Density STM32F103R6T6. Is this correct? Lastly - most importantly - will Low Density STM32F103R6T6 ''WORK'' properly with IAR 5.20??? This was the original issue my firm and others had bumped against - and which you had resolved for us... Thanks much for your care - sorry this is so involved...