Skip to main content
Visitor
September 18, 2026
Question

Unable to connect to STM32N657 after remapping BOOT1 from PA6 to PN10

  • September 18, 2026
  • 1 reply
  • 47 views

Hello,

I am using an STM32N657 on a custom board.

I need to use PA6 as PIXCLK, so I would like to move the BOOT1 function from the default PA6 pin to PN10.

According to the STM32N6 BootROM/OTP description, I understood that BOOT1 can be remapped using OTP19 (BOOTROM_CONFIG_10):

 

I programmed OTP19 with 0x15200000 in STM32CubeProgrammer to change BOOT1 from PA6 to PN10.

Before programming OTP19, I could connect to the MCU normally through ST-LINK/SWD using PA6 as BOOT1.

However, after programming OTP19 to 0x15200000, I can no longer connect to the MCU.

The same issue has occurred on more than one custom board.

My test conditions are:

  • MCU: STM32N657
  • I/O supply voltage: 1.8 V
  • BOOT1 remapped to: PN10
  • OTP19 programmed value: 0x15200000
  • PN10 is held HIGH before and during reset
  • ST-LINK detects the target voltage
  • During connection, STM32CubeProgrammer can sometimes identify Device ID 0x486, but then reports that the connection to device 0x486 is lost
  • The board works and SWD connection is available before changing BOOT1 from PA6 to PN10

Could you please confirm the following?

  1. Is OTP19 = 0x15200000 the correct value for remapping BOOT1 to PN10 on STM32N657?
  2. Are there any additional OTP settings required before using PN10 as BOOT1 when VDDIO3 is 1.8 V?
  3. Is there any known limitation or issue when using PN10 as the Development BOOT1 pin?
  4. After programming OTP19, is a specific power-cycle/reset sequence required for the new BOOT1 pin assignment to become effective?
  5. Is there any recovery method if the MCU can no longer enter Development Boot or connect through SWD after this OTP19 change?

I would appreciate it if you could also provide the recommended OTP configuration and programming sequence for changing BOOT1 from PA6 to PN10.

Best regards,

 

 

1 reply

mƎALLEm
ST Technical Moderator
September 21, 2026

Hello ​@CHACHA and welcome to the ST community,

The same question has been asked in this post:

The question has been already raised internally for review over the internal ticket CDM0065901 & CDM0065903  (not accessible by the community users).

To give better visibility on the answered topics, please click "Best answer" on the reply which solved your issue or answered your question.