cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

HAL_GetUID functions do not seem to work

keebler411
Associate II

The HAL_GetUID functions return the same value on different chips of the same series. I am using an STM32L0 series chip. This is my code:

uint32_t serialw0 = HAL_GetUIDw0();
uint32_t serialw1 = HAL_GetUIDw1();
uint32_t serialw2 = HAL_GetUIDw2();

Which returns these sames values on every chip:

205994032, 926167089, 17

Searching through the generated files this is code for the above functions:

#define UID_BASE  (0x1FF80050UL)  /*!< Unique device ID register base address  */
 
uint32_t HAL_GetUIDw0(void)
{
  return(READ_REG(*((uint32_t *)UID_BASE)));
}
 
uint32_t HAL_GetUIDw1(void)
{
  return(READ_REG(*((uint32_t *)(UID_BASE + 4U))));
}
 
uint32_t HAL_GetUIDw2(void)
{
  return(READ_REG(*((uint32_t *)(UID_BASE + 8U))));
}
 

Now if write my own macro:

#define STM32_UUID ((uint32_t *)(0x1FF80050))
uint32_t serialw0 = *(STM32_UUID);
uint32_t serialw1 = *(STM32_UUID+4U);
uint32_t serialw2 = *(STM32_UUID+8U);

I get unique values for each chip but I don't think this is correct either:

205994032, 3432448017, 0

In fact its only word1 that seems to be unique which I suppose could be correct.

4 REPLIES 4
Marcelo Barros
Associate III

I had a problem related to HAL_GetUIDw2() when using STM32L0x1/STM32L0x2. Checkingvthe user manual, the third ID word is not located at UID_BASE+8. Instead, it is at position UID_BASE+20. So, HAL_GetUIDw2() seems to point to the wrong position. The first two words are related to lot number and waffer number and only int the third word we have a factory programmed unique ID for this lot.

I suggest you check you user manual at section "Unique device ID registers".

Imen.D
ST Employee

Hello,

You are right. After check, we confirm that 0x14 is the correct offset for HAL_GetUIDw2 (as mentioned in the STM32L0 Reference Manual).

I raised this issue internally to developer team for fix and correct stm32L0xx_hal.c file (line 414)

// return(READ_REG(*((uint32_t *)(UID_BASE + 8U))));

So, this line should be:

return(READ_REG(*((uint32_t *)(UID_BASE + 20U))));

Thank you for highlighting this issue.

Kind Regards,

Imen

When your question is answered, please close this topic by clicking "Accept as Solution".
Thanks
Imen
keebler411
Associate II

Thanks for the confirmation. I'm just learning this platform and problems like this don't help, but I understand mistakes happen. Not like I haven't done similar either ;)

RufusVS
Associate III

Do other chip series have a similar offset problem?  I am using STM32U family.

In my framework code, it uses BASE+0, BASE+4, BASE+8