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 [2020/06/12 16:45] – [mini ST-LINK V2] kingkevinjtag [2021/01/18 16:56] – [SEGGER J-Link] add OB kingkevin
Line 151: Line 151:
 {{:jtag:mini_st-link_v2e-back.jpg?0x100|}} {{:jtag:mini_st-link_v2e-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}}).+Instead on an STM32F103, this dongle uses a [[http://www.cksic.com/en/|CKS]] [[http://www.cksmcu.com/cn/promcu-14.html|CKS32F103]] (sometimes CS32F103)  ({{ :jtag:ic_mcu_cks_cks32f103xb.pdf|chinese datasheet}}{{ :jtag:ic_mcu_cks_cks32f103xb_en.pdf|datasheet translated to english}}).
 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, electrical pin properties, registers, ...). 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, electrical pin properties, registers, ...).
 The CS32F103 seems like a complete clone of the STM32F103 (exact same pinout, architecture, registers). The CS32F103 seems like a complete clone of the STM32F103 (exact same pinout, architecture, registers).
Line 413: Line 413:
 But v8 and v9 are not supported anymore by J-Link, meaning no new feature will be added to them. But v8 and v9 are not supported anymore by J-Link, meaning no new feature will be added to them.
 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.
 +
 +Here pictures from devices not from official distributors, thus they might not be genuine but only clones.
  
 They come in the same case: They come in the same case:
Line 436: Line 438:
  
 Here a J-Link v10. 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. It uses a NXP LPC4337 which supports USB high speed, and allows faster debugging speeds.
 In addition to the others, it adds cJTAG support: In addition to the others, it adds cJTAG support:
Line 442: Line 443:
 {{:jtag:jlink-v10_board_top-mini.jpg?0x150|board front}} {{:jtag:jlink-v10_board_top-mini.jpg?0x150|board front}}
 {{:jtag:jlink-v10_board_bottom-mini.jpg?0x150|board back}} {{:jtag:jlink-v10_board_bottom-mini.jpg?0x150|board back}}
 +
 +Here a [[https://www.segger.com/products/debug-probes/j-link/models/j-link-ob/|J-Link OB]].
 +It is supposed to be embedded on development board and provide an easy way to flash the main micro-controller.
 +It have much less capabilities (no JTAG, only SWD, ...) and less protections, but is a lot smaller and sufficient for most tasks.
 +Additionally it provides a UART interface, ideal for printf debugging.
 +I actually can be implemented on several micro-controller, and in my case a STM32F072.
 +
 +{{:jtag:jlink-ob_front.jpg?0x150|board front}}
 +{{:jtag:jlink-ob_back.jpg?0x150|board back}}
 +
 +
 ===== Texas Instruments XDS100v3 ===== ===== Texas Instruments XDS100v3 =====
  
jtag.txt · Last modified: 2024/01/07 17:49 by 127.0.0.1