cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

What is ocurrance and effect of Dyn/Static bank switch errata STM32F429?

graham23
Associate
Posted on March 25, 2016 at 19:27

Hi,

We are using STM32F429IIT6. We have IC revision 1. Looking at latest errata (Rev 9), seems that the following applies:

2.9.7 FMC dynamic and static bank switching

Description

The dynamic and static banks cannot be accessed concurrently.

How and when does this occur? How does the issue manifest itself? What does it mean to access 'concurrently'?

We have SDRAM (16-bit wide) and LCDs (accessed as SRAM, using 32-bit data bus, only use writes), interfaced using the FMC on different banks (initialized using the STM32F4xx HAL).  Is this a situation where this errata would occur?

We can access the SDRAM fine. Can write to the LCDs fine. Can use the SDRAM and write to LCDs in the same application fine in some situations (e.g. loop that does 16-bit reads of SDRAM, to compose next data writes to LCDs - so SDRAM and LCD read/writes are interleaves with some data manipulation in between). Other situations get strange data written to LCDs - such as when doing loop of 'fast' 32-bit read of SDRAM that is then written to the LCD. Doing an 'almost as fast' loop of 2x16-bit reads of SDRAM, compose that into 32bit, then write to LCD... this shows a bit of corruption of data. The code accessing the SDRAM and LCDs is linear procedure.

Checking other errata, they don't appear to be issues. e.g. ''2.9.5 Interruption of CPU read burst access to an end of SDRAM row'' - the workaround is already.

Thanks,

Graham
2 REPLIES 2
Amel NASRI
ST Employee
Posted on March 28, 2016 at 13:26

Hi  jordan.graham,

Both limitations ''2.9.5: Interruption of CPU read burst access to an end of SDRAM row'' and ''2.9.7: FMC dynamic and static bank switching'' where fixed in revision 3 of STM32F42xx and STM32F43xx devices (as stated in the Table 4. Summary of silicon limitations).

So if you are using this revision, you will not have such issues.

-Mayla- 

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.

graham23
Associate
Posted on March 28, 2016 at 19:19

Thanks for responding Mayla. We have revision 1 part on our boards. We are trying to see if the issue we are seeing is a manifestation of this errata or something else. So can see if need to implement a work-around, or if need to replace with revision 3.

Hence my questions.

Do you happen to know when revision 3 became available? Errata was updated for silicon revision 3 5-May-2014.