IAR 5.20 and pre silicon rev Y

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:44

That was the best answer they seem to have been able to come up with for a very specific question... Was I not clear enough?

''Is this a case where programming the MCU via EWARM will not work properly or are the binaries generated by EWARM 5.20 incompatible with rev. B and Z silicon?

e.g. Generating a Motorola S-Record with EWARM 5.20 that can be used to

update our rev B product in the field using our own bootloader and the

serial port would work; while trying to program the part through EWARM 5.20 and the JTAG or SWI would likely fail.''

Ryan

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:44

> I asked IAR ... the binaries generated by v5.20 may not be compatible with rev. B & Z.

good job there Ryan, now you got us all shivering in terror!

it sort of reminds me of the microsoft upgrade treadmill: their current product is state of the art best-in-class until the new version is out, at which point it's not recommended that you use the old one anymore because of it having so many problems...

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:44

''MAY'' not be compatible with rev. B & Z...

That thorough, that detailed, that ''confident'' an answer certainly convinces me!

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:44

So I received some clarification re: my question. To paraphrase...

1) Code generated by v5.20 may not work on rev. B or Z. No further information is available.

2) The details of the actual problem are not being released at this time. (as most of us have figured out already)

...3 more days until vacation... I really need it...

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:44

Ryan - you have always tried to be informative/helpful. Most of us are distressed with the ''lack'' of regular, visible effort by ST & toolmaker.

If the tables were reversed - and our payments exhibited such ''errata'' - I wonder if ST/toolmakers would be ''content'' with such response...

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:44

Hi STOne-32,

Again thank you. Know that you are ''caught in the middle'' - between anxious STM32 users and your STM32 development team-mates.

When our STM32 does not perform - either as the data sheet states - or what we believe to be, ''normal & customary'' - we users are in trouble.

For clarity I will summarize what I believe to be the most ''recent'' thrust of this thread:

a) for ''only'' IAR 5.20 users - IAR & ST ''hint'' that we are to use only Rev Y. We are concerned by the lack of real specifics - as engineers, programmers we are ''detail-guys'' - we become unsettled by vagueness.

So - please identify the most-likely ''issues'' we IAR 5.20 users will enounter should we use our existing stock of ''pre Rev Y'' STM devices. As this forum shows - we are motivated/resourceful - IF we know what to look for we may discover/develop a work-around...

b) for ''all others'' (those not using IAR 5.20). Does Rev Y offer any benefits for this group? (I always like to use newest - in the assumption/hope that it is most complete/most correct)

Believe that I've got this right - my intention is to aid STOne-32's effort.

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:44

Hi All,

Your discussion and raised points are very interesting, This makes me obliged to ask my team mates in charge of the STM32 design and get clear explanations, I will let you know by this Friday (CET) latest the final statement from ST.

Cheers,

STOne-32.

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:44

Hi,

With a small delay, I would like to inform you that ST will release officially in the coming days an updated Errata-sheet with a dedicated section on ''Compatibility issue with latest compiler releases''.

This limitation concerns only rev B and rev Z of Medium-density (Access and Performance lines). {Hope this make things more clear for most of You}.

Cheers,

STOne-32.

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:44

Hmm... I totally got the joke. No need to apologize for anything. My comment about ''Was I not clear enough?'' was not directed at anyone here... I was refering to the question I posed to IAR about the issue...

Cheers folks...

Posted on May 17, 2011 at 12:44

> good job there Ryan, now you got us all shivering in terror!

I'm sorry Ryan, I was trying to be funny but obviously I wasn't. you did do a great job getting that answer. but it just bothered me that the implications of the answer you got were kind of spooky...