2022-02-23 02:49 AM
All 'G0 except 'G06x/07x - i.e. including 'G0x0 - are in AN2606 described as Pattern 11; and Pattern 11 combinations involve BOOT_LOCK(bit).
However, I see no BOOT_LOCK in the option bits in RM0454 rev.6.
ST, please clarify.
JW
Solved! Go to Solution.
2022-02-23 03:57 AM
Hello Jan, Amel,
The RM is reference for product description. No BOOT_LOCK on G0x0 products.
I will ask colleagues to update consequently AN2606. Thank you for your message.
Best regards,
Antoine
2022-02-23 03:07 AM
Hi @Community member ,
A similar question is asked here and @JHOUD has already provided an explanation.
Nevertheless, it remains worth to check AN2606 content again. I'll come back to you on this regard.
-Amel
To give better visibility on the answered topics, please click on Accept as Solution on the reply which solved your issue or answered your question.
2022-02-23 03:57 AM
Hello Jan, Amel,
The RM is reference for product description. No BOOT_LOCK on G0x0 products.
I will ask colleagues to update consequently AN2606. Thank you for your message.
Best regards,
Antoine
2022-02-23 04:48 AM
Hi , @Antoine Odonne , @Amel NASRI ,
Thanks both for the clarification.
So, until AN2606 is updated: it safe to say that the 'G0x0 bootloader entry is identical to Pattern 6, except nBOOT0_SEL(bit) functions as nBoot0_SW(bit) with inverted polarity?
(And, please let your colleagues also know about my "space-between-pattern-and-number" rant).
Thanks,
Jan
2022-02-23 05:05 AM
I would tend to agree but in fact I am not sure this pattern usage is the best to follow:
I see for example that some F0 products follow pattern 6, but F0 Serie don't document nBoot0_SW(bit) but a BOOT_SEL option bit. its polarity changed in G0 Serie justifying the "n" in front of the bit.
I suggest to base your choice on Boot Configuration chapter from RM which should be proven by usage and will share this additional comment to colleagues working on this file.
Thank you and regards,
Antoine
2022-02-23 05:25 AM
Thanks, Antoine.
Jan
@Antoine Odonne