Re: [arm-gnu] STM32 silicon errata

[Lanchon <lanchon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

My thoughts exactly, Charles. They are expressed here, see my 3 posts:

http://www.st.com/mcu/forums-cat-7336-23.html&start=30

Previously I've openly questioned ST's policies regarding abusive and 
ridiculous license terms on their firmware library that were added in a 
lib revision, and their zero disclosure of how the code flash protection 
works (if indeed it does), with mixed results. On the former case the 
terms were removed, and on the latter absolutely no information was ever 
publish on the protection system despite the uproar of the STM32 
community. (BTW, the STM32 should be considered as having no protection 
at all; "security by obscurity" does not qualify as security by today's 
standards.)
The discussions took place in ST's STM32 forum. Though ST clearly didn't 
like what was happening, at least none of the strong posts were removed, 
their posters banned or the discussions censored. I mention this because 
something unprecedented just happened: I posted over the weekend on the 
thread linked above and now I find that it has been locked by the admin. 
I believe this is the first time in the forum history that a thread has 
been locked. So it's not enough that ST withholds vital information from 
its users, now they're starting to censor them as well.
Apparently ST feels a very strong need to control the flow of 
information in order to alter the perception of reality by their 
customers; I guess reality must be very foul indeed...
If I were you, I'd make sure I don't forget that "note to self" you made.

Regards,
Lanchon


Charles Manning wrote:
> That's a very silly policy on the part of ST.
>
> Regardless of what compiler you are using you could be writing broken 
> assembly.
> How is anyone supposed to design a product using the part if they don't tell 
> people what is broken. Admitting it is broken, but not being specific, is the 
> worst possble thing to do PR wise.
> Note to self: don't design in any ST parts...
>
>
>
> On Friday 03 October 2008 20:43:50 Lanchon wrote:
>   
> > Thank you very much, Nathan. I already asked and ST does not want to
> > answer. In fact, that erratum was only published after fuss on ST's
> > forum. Regrettably, while working with ST I have grown accustomed to
> > this kind of secrecy.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lanchon
> >
> > Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >     
> > > Lanchon,
> > >
> > >       
> > > > ST makes the STM32 microcontroller line based on the Cortex-M3 core.
> > > > Today ST published a new silicon errata document for the line in
> > > > which it states that code generated by "GNU rev 4.2.3 and later" is
> > > > incompatible with all but the latest silicon revision of the chips.
> > > >
> > > > 1) What new behavior in 4.2.3 triggers this issue?
> > > > 2) What exactly goes wrong when the issue is triggered?
> > > > 3) Was there a workaround in place for the STM32 in pre-4.2.3 compilers?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you very much for your help.
> > > >         
> > > You should ask ST for that information, the errata document you cite
> > > has insufficient information to determine. CodeSourcery has no
> > > additional information about this.
> > >
> > > nathan
> > >       
>
>
>