Migrating STM32F469NIH6 to STM32F769NIH6

[RobNewbury]

I'm considering migrating from STM32F469NIH6 to STM32F769NIH6. From data sheets it is apparant that these two MCU's have compatible pinout, however the pinout compatibility tool of STM32CUBEMX V6.15.0 doesn't show these MCU's as compatible, why is this?

[TDK]

They're compatible. They have the same pinout. F479 has encryption but is otherwise identical.

It shows up for me. Could be due to something you have configured that CubeMX isn't handling properly. The pinout compatibility tool is nowhere near perfect.

[RobNewbury]

Thanks TDK, that's very helpful, as a matter of interest what is the version of STM32CUBEMX that you are using?

I started my project as a STM32DISCO board project, but I am now moving over to a custom PCB and there will be advantages to using F769 in my application.

This is the list of pinout compatible devices that I am seeing.

[RobNewbury]

Aargh! I made a mistake in my post, I'm actually trying to migrate from STM32F469NIH6 to STM32F769NIH6, the question remains the same, these two MCU's appear to have the same pinout but don't show in STM32CUBEMX.

[RobNewbury]

TDK, I made a mistake in my post! I'm wanting to migrate from STM32F469 to STM32F769! However the question remains the same as they appear to have the same pinout.

In a day or so, I'll close this post and start a new one, thanks for you reply and apologies for the confusion.

[STOne-32]

Dear @RobNewbury ,

Here you Go :

https://www.st.com/resource/en/application_note/an4660-migration-of-microcontroller-applications-from-stm32f42xxxf43xxx-devices-to-stm32f7-series-devices-stmicroelectronics.pdf

Hope it helps you,

STOne-32 

[RobNewbury]

Hi STOne-32, thanks for your reply and pointing me toward AN4660, thank you. AN4660 does indeed shows that STM32F469Nx6 and STM32F769Nx6 are pin compatible, however STM32CUBEMX 'pin compatibility tool' doesn't. 

[TDK]

STM32F769NIH is listed as pinout compatible to STM32F469NIH for me:

If you're having trouble, include your IOC file.

You can edit your posts with the down arrow in the top-right to correct incorrect information. Helps to proofread before you hit submit. I don't know why part numbers have "typos" in so many people's posts. It is frustrating putting effort into questions that simultaneously (a) exactly what the user asked and (b) not what the user wants.

[Issamos]

Hello @RobNewbury 

Sorry I’m not on my PC to try to reproduce the same behavior on the SYM32CubeMX V6.15.0. But, according to what I’m having here, it seems to be an issue on the STM32CubeMX that should be corrected by ST on the coming versions or it is a problem on your side (including your .ioc file will help). But according to the DS11532 Rev9: 

The STM32F76x LQFP144, LQFP176, LQFP208, TFBGA216, UFBGA176 packages are fully pin to pin compatible with STM32F4xx devices.

PS: The note I’ve stated previously is not really clear since the STM32F767 TFBGA216 is not compatible pin to pin with the STM32F469 TFBGA216. So, I think the note should be clearer. It can even point to the application note AN4660 for details.

Also, the pin F11 on the TFBGA216 figure (figure 4 of the AN4660) should be VDD and not VSS according to the products datasheets. That should be rectified on the next doc revision. 
Finally, the title of the Figure 20 of DS11532 should be changed to avoid any confusion between figure 20 and figure 21.

@STOne-32 Could you please have a look. 

Best Regards.

II

[RobNewbury]

Hello @TDK, thanks for pointing out the down arrow edit facility, I didn't know this.
Thank you for taking the time to post your previous reply and I apologise for my mistake, however the information that you have provided will I am sure be helpful to someone.