Posted on October 22, 2014 at 17:50You suggest to pass
''information between the two about the configuration and state''
is unclear, what ''adequate information''
would you pass considering I'm killing peripherals and cleaning interrupts register before jumping to the application code? Think of it like a meal order ticket in a restaurant and it's shift change time in the kitchen. You need to hand-over the order, so what the order is, what's been done so far, how many minutes are left on the steak, etc. In computer science this is often referred to as ''state'' information. If you've configured pins, or have interrupts enabled/pending, or in the midst of a multi-block transfer or sequence, that kind of stuff. Anything that's not in a reset state, or you've spent a lot of cycles initializing, and would take lots more cycles to reinitialize.
Please explain your point.
''You'll probably want to rework the application's SystemInit() code so that it doesn't tear down and reconfigure the clocking and PLL, and you'd want it to point the vector table at the one owned by the application.''
Your car is running, you jump in and crank the starter again? Much unnecessary screeching and grinding occurs, don't do that. You're driving along at 72 MPH on the motorway, and suddenly decide to shift into first gear, in the STM32 you won't tear the gear box and transmission out, but the speed differential may leave peripherals (the registers and flip-flops you can't see) in indeterminate states.
I wonder if my issue could be related to a specific choice or bug in the IC design. Frankly one of the least likely causes of failure. Check what the validation engineers identified in the errata.
