jtag
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
jtag [2019/04/04 22:19] – [ST-LINK V2 aluminium] add two variants kingkevin | jtag [2020/06/12 16:45] – [mini ST-LINK V2] kingkevin | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
For $9 you can't expect more, and if you want a cheap adapter I recommend the other ones (see below). | For $9 you can't expect more, and if you want a cheap adapter I recommend the other ones (see below). | ||
- | ==== ST-LINK V2 aluminium | + | ==== mini ST-LINK V2 ==== |
These adapters come in a small dongle sized aluminium case. | These adapters come in a small dongle sized aluminium case. | ||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
This variant uses an STM32F103 in the UFQFN-48 package. | This variant uses an STM32F103 in the UFQFN-48 package. | ||
This is just a couple of cents cheaper than the more traditional TQFP-48 package, but this is enough en mass to change the footprint on the board. | This is just a couple of cents cheaper than the more traditional TQFP-48 package, but this is enough en mass to change the footprint on the board. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === MINI ST-Link V2E === | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Instead on an STM32F103, this dongle uses a [[http:// | ||
+ | I've seen pin compatible alternatives (ST STM8S003 vs Nuvoton N76E003), even architecture compatible (ST STM32F103 vs GigeDevice GD32F103), but they always had some differences (architecture, | ||
+ | The CS32F103 seems like a complete clone of the STM32F103 (exact same pinout, architecture, | ||
+ | So far I could not not see any difference (I tested flash, USB, SWD). | ||
+ | I guess this micro-controller is so popular that it was just a question of time until it was ripped-off. | ||
+ | To check if this is a complete clone you could decapsulate the chip and compare the silicon die, or check the errata behaviour (I can't imagine they re-implemented it themselves, up to the mistakes). | ||
+ | The next step would be to have a CS32F103 chip in a package marked as STM32F103. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == GC == | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Most ST-LINK minis which I get now use the CKS32 chip. | ||
+ | I'm a bit sad because the CS32F103C8 really only has the advertised 64 KB of flash, while the STM32F103C8 actually has 128 KB (e.g. what the STM32F103CB has), and when you have a lot of debugging strings in your firmware, you very soon reach the limit of the 64 KB. | ||
+ | Thus, on my quest to find ST-LINK minis with STM32F103 (e.g. where the ground pin is not between SWDIO and SWCLK) I landed on this one. | ||
+ | Sadly it also does not use a STM32F103, but a STM32GC102C8. | ||
+ | I have no idea what this chip is. | ||
+ | The GC series does not exist (at least ST doesn' | ||
+ | I'm not sure if this was to save cost, because this is the first board I see with 2 ESD protections (one for USB, the other for SWDIO/SWCLK in addition to the inline protection resistors, and none for RST/SWIM). | ||
+ | |||
==== Baite ==== | ==== Baite ==== | ||
Line 385: | Line 414: | ||
Instead I recommend to get the [[https:// | Instead I recommend to get the [[https:// | ||
- | The come in the same case: | + | They come in the same case: |
{{: | {{: | ||
Line 405: | Line 434: | ||
{{: | {{: | ||
{{: | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Here a J-Link v10. | ||
+ | This is currently the only version being developed on. | ||
+ | It uses a NXP LPC4337 which supports USB high speed, and allows faster debugging speeds. | ||
+ | In addition to the others, it adds cJTAG support: | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | {{: | ||
===== Texas Instruments XDS100v3 ===== | ===== Texas Instruments XDS100v3 ===== | ||
jtag.txt · Last modified: 2024/01/07 17:49 by 127.0.0.1