Topic : Verifying option bytes fails when programming 72F561K9 with st7_pgm

Forum : ST7/STM8

Original Post
Post Information Post
December 18, 2008 - 2:06pm
Guest

Hi Vincent

We have been testing the modified version of ST7_pgm for a while and have found that we cannot verify the option bytes when programming 72F561K9.

Selecting device st72f561k9.
Erasing FLASH.
Loading file 'STCA5420.HEX'.
Verifying against file 'STCA5420.HEX'.
Programming option bytes 0x48 0x0E
Verifying option bytes.

Error 103: Option byte verification failed: read 0x680E instead of 0x7C80B9E601

I think this is probably related to the initial problem that we had with the 72F324BJ4.

Any help would be appreciated.

Best regards & Merry Christmas

Damon

Replies
Post Information Post
+1
0
-1
December 18, 2008 - 2:38pm
Raisonance Support Team

Hi,

There is a display bug in the ST7_pgm. I will correct it and then it will answer this:
Error 103: Option byte verification failed: read 0x680E instead of 0x480E

But it is just a bug in the displaying of the expected value. (wrong % in a printf...)
It doesn't affect the behavior more than the error message.

Now, please take a look at the ST72561 datasheet from ST, page 252:
http://www.st.com/stonline/books/pdf/docs/10022.pdf

You will see that the bit number 5 of the Option Byte 0 is reserved and fixed to 1.
But in the value you ask the software to program (0x480E), this bit is set to zero.
This is why when you ask to program 0x480E, it really programs 0x680E. And then the verification fails because the programmed value is different from the requested value!
So you should program 0x680E, because 0x480E is not a valid value.

I can send you a patched version with the display bug corrected, but it won't be very different from the one you have, and changing the 0x480E to a 0x680E should be enough to unlock you, so there is not much point.
If you still want it, please send an email requesting it to 'support@raisonance.com'. (include a link to this post in the email)

Best Regards,

Vincent

+1
0
-1
December 18, 2008 - 4:06pm
Guest

Hi Vincent,
you are right about bit 5, the error was actually caused by Indart which we used to use for development.

Best regards

Damon