CuVoodoo

the sorcery of copper

User Tools

Site Tools


jtag

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
jtag [2019/04/04 22:19] – [ST-LINK V2 aluminium] add two variants kingkevinjtag [2019/08/19 06:26] – [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 ===
 +
 +{{:jtag:stlink_cks_case.jpg?0x100|}}
 +{{:jtag:stlink_cks_front.jpg?0x100|}}
 +{{:jtag:stlink_cks_back.jpg?0x100|}}
 +
 +Instead on an STM32F103, this dongle uses a [[http://www.cksic.com/en/|CKS]] {{ :jtag:ic_mcu_cks_cks32f103xb.pdf|CS32F103}} (sometimes CKS32F103)  ({{ :jtag:ic_mcu_cks_cks32f103xb_en.pdf|datasheet translated to english}}).
 +I've seen pin compatible alternatives (ST STM8S003 vs Nuvoton N76E003), but they always had some differences (architecture, electrical pin properties,...).
 +The CS32F103 seems like a complete clone of the STM32F103 (exact same pinout and 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.
 ==== Baite ==== ==== Baite ====
  
Line 385: Line 399:
 Instead I recommend to get the [[https://www.segger.com/products/debug-probes/j-link/models/j-link-edu/|J-Link EDU]] which is a supported v10 and not expensive. Instead I recommend to get the [[https://www.segger.com/products/debug-probes/j-link/models/j-link-edu/|J-Link EDU]] which is a supported v10 and not expensive.
  
-The come in the same case:+They come in the same case:
  
 {{:jtag:imag0403.jpg?0x150|device front}} {{:jtag:imag0403.jpg?0x150|device front}}
Line 405: Line 419:
 {{:jtag:jlink-v9-front.jpg?0x150|board front}} {{:jtag:jlink-v9-front.jpg?0x150|board front}}
 {{:jtag:jlink-v9-back.jpg?0x150|board back}} {{:jtag:jlink-v9-back.jpg?0x150|board back}}
 +
 +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:
 +
 +{{:jtag:jlink-v10_board_top-mini.jpg?0x150|board front}}
 +{{:jtag:jlink-v10_board_bottom-mini.jpg?0x150|board back}}
 ===== Texas Instruments XDS100v3 ===== ===== Texas Instruments XDS100v3 =====
  
jtag.txt · Last modified: 2024/01/07 17:49 by 127.0.0.1