STM32U585 Programming Verification. After programming the STM32 with the -v option are there any other methods to validate the data I wrote? I do not want to read the data up into a file and do a file compare.
is
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎2022-12-12 8:14 AM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎2022-12-12 8:23 AM
Perhaps have it run a code sequence that checks integrity of SHA, CRC, or some other signing method you've integrated?
Up vote any posts that you find helpful, it shows what's working..
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎2022-12-12 8:26 AM
This is a factory process and we would like to check it at the time of programming the images. The DUT does not have the ability to communicate status at that time. We would prefer not to have to read the data out of the DUT as that would take took much time and would leave a lot of files hanging around.
thanks for the idea however
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎2022-12-12 8:42 AM
There used to be a checksum/crc method, and it's been suggested in the past for ST to add this back. The STM32 has hardware methods, and most recent Micron QUADSPI/OCTOSPI devices have an array level CRC64 method.
All the programming methods use code pushed into the device.
The External Loader(s) can also touch and test whatever memory you want.
Perhaps use the DLLs and create your own factory programmer that meets needs/goals, or use one of the more industrial programmers more tailored to a line test operator.
Up vote any posts that you find helpful, it shows what's working..
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎2022-12-12 8:44 AM
All good idea, but not heading in the direction I am looking to go
thanks
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎2022-12-22 9:08 AM
This forum thread was marked by the moderator as needing a little more investigation, so a Support case was created in your name and will be handled off-line. Should anyone have any related questions, please feel free to open a Support case directly at your myST portal: https://community.st.com/s/onlinesupport
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎2022-12-22 9:55 AM
There are a number of things that could significantly improve the function and usabilities of the tools.
Not least, a more scripted, and editable method for external loaders, or describing hardware specifics to the tools.
Verification methods that don't need megabytes of data to retraverse the link between the programmer, pod, and target. Especially for devices like 128MB QSPI, and ones with built in CRC 64-bit scanning/integrity methods.
Focus on Speed and Quality Assurance, and real-world usage
Up vote any posts that you find helpful, it shows what's working..
