New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
http://www.microcontroller.com/news/arm_cortex_stm.asp

STMicroelectronics has introduced the new STM32 microcontroller family, based on
the
Harvard architecture ARM Cortex.

Article includes a roadmap and a useful chart of the STM32 low power operation,
which is
as low as 0.5mA/MHz.

Regards

Bill Giovino
Executive Editor
http://Microcontroller.com



Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics

Quoted text here. Click to load it
on the
Quoted text here. Click to load it
operation, which is
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Note Cortex-M3 is not a pure Harvard architecture as you claim. Modern Harvard
CPUs use a single address space with separate memories for performance,
so they get the best of both worlds.

Also note TI is a public M3 licensee and planning to upgrade much of their
automotive
line to use M3.

Wilco



Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics
Quoted text here. Click to load it
on the
Quoted text here. Click to load it
operation, which is
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You might like to add a comment that on present data, the
*USB
*CAN
peripheral list, means NOT at the same time :(

They have mapped these to the same pins.

Hopefully that is just an error in the data sheet, and no one is really
silly enough to actually make silicon, with CAN _and_ USB peripherals,
and then wire them so you can only use one at a time!!!

-jg


Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics
Quoted text here. Click to load it
based on the
Quoted text here. Click to load it
operation, which is
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's quite wrong. On 64 and 100 pin packages most of the peripherals
(including CAN) can be remapped to alternative pins.


Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics
Quoted text here. Click to load it
on the
Quoted text here. Click to load it
operation, which is
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Please load the current data sheet, and search for CANRX, and show me
where in Table 3, it shows ANY alternative mapping, for any package ?

We would have a possible application for the 48 pin device, so you are
saying the 48 pin part cannot separately map CAN/USB.
Can you give a link for that information please ?

ST should make that shortfall very clear in their dats sheets.

-jg



Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Just had a very *quick* look at the schematic for the dev board so don't
take this as gospel - but it looks like pins 70 and 71 have both USB and CAN
Rx and CAN Tx signal options,  pins 95 and 96 have both I2C and CAN Rx and
CAN Tx signal options.



--
Regards,
Richard.

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Thanks Richard - good idea to look further at the Dev PCB sch...

On my data sheet, 70/71 [32/33] show as USB/CAN, but i2c is on
92/93[tqfp100] (not your 95/96? )

but both choices also exists on tqfp48
92/93 => 42/43 tqfp48
95/96 => 45/46 tqfp48
- so this may yet still be a candidate....
(contrary to what simone claimed.. ? )

-jg


Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics
Quoted text here. Click to load it
based on the
Quoted text here. Click to load it
operation, which is
Quoted text here. Click to load it

There's nothing regarding "alternate function remapping" in the
datasheet. This is quite strange.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Reference manual, page 87.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's sure.


Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Thanks, downloaded that and it does show 3 choices.
The UM mentions a 36 pin (?!) package, not shown in the data sheet,
and says [2. Remap available only on 100-pin package], even
tho PD0, PD1, do seem to exist on TQFP48, but I see the
package dwg (but not the table) suggests these also alias
with Osc In/Out....
PB8,PB9 seem to be in the clear... ?

ST needs to clean all this up.

Showing the classic signs of green silicon, as expected I guess :)

-jg




Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics
http://www.microcontroller.com/news/arm_cortex_stm.asp

I've received a clarification from ST, and it is reflected in the above article.

The USB and the CAN may *not* be enabled together. It is not an issue of the
pinout -
the issue is that both share the same packet buffer, and therfore cannot be
implemented
at the same time.

Bill Giovino
Executive Editor
http://Microcontroller.com




Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics

Quoted text here. Click to load it
article.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
pinout -
Quoted text here. Click to load it
implemented
Quoted text here. Click to load it

** bangs head on desk **

They had better get that GEM onto the front page of the data sheet, and
call it USB _OR_ CAN !!

** wanders off, shaking head at school-boy error **

-jg



Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics
"Jim Granville" wrote...
Quoted text here. Click to load it
article.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
pinout -
Quoted text here. Click to load it
implemented

Hey, Jim, look at it this way - this never would have been made public if it
wasn't for
you!

-Bill.







Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics

Quoted text here. Click to load it
article.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
wasn't for
Quoted text here. Click to load it

;)

One clarify : How credible is your ST contact ? - as I cannot see "share
the same packet buffer" anywhere in the user manual, or drawings, and
nothing suggests that conflict.
Search cannot find 'USB' inside the CAN chapter, nor 'CAN' inside the
USB chapter ?
It also does not make chip-design sense, surely it is harder to
lock/overlap some block resource like that, in this cut/paste world ?

That said, it is a strange thing to 'make up'/ admit to if untrue, so
perhaps it is coming via the errata pipeline ?

-jg







Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics
Quoted text here. Click to load it

My contacts are very credible. And, unfortunately, what we are discussing is
something
that would not be made obvious in datasheet diagrams. Datasheet diagrams are
mean to
provide an overview of functionality in as clear a visual format as possible.
Like the
model of the atom, it almost never reflects 100% what's inside the chip.

Chip buffers are RAM, and RAM is very greedy when it comes to die area. Allowing
for an
extra buffer could price out the chip as non-competitive, or it could be
unwieldy from a
layout POV.

My GUESS - the chip was designed for a primary customer, who wanted either USB
or CAN
(but not both). During chip design, a smart marketing person asked about adding
the
extra peripheral. Adding the CAN or USB adds small pieces of a penny to the chip
cost.
But adding an extra buffer probably priced the chip beyond what was quoted to
the target
customer.

Jim, if you want to take this off-line, I can be reached at the first email
address on
this page:
http://www.microcontroller.com/Embedded.asp?did23 %

-Bill.






Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics

"Simone" wrote...
Quoted text here. Click to load it
based on
the
Quoted text here. Click to load it
operation,
which is
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, these are the issues that crop up when you choose to write your own
original
article, instead of just publishing the "official" press release...

I've asked for a clarification from ST, as well as a better understanding of the
STM32's
address mapping.

ST's PR and engineering teams work very closely together (there was an Engineer
in the
room with PR during my briefing) so I expect an answer shortly.

-Bill.







Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It now says:

"The disadvantage of a Harvard Architecture microcontroller is that because
instruction and data memory do not share the same PHYSICAL bus, there
can be a reduced level of flexibility in the hardware for some applications."

That's incorrect. All Harvards have a connection between the instruction and
data memories. On micro controllers this is a direct physical connection as
you need a way to read constant data from flash. On cached cores both
I&D caches connect to the same main memory bus.

So I'm not sure what you mean with reduced hardware flexibility? The only
drawback some Harvards have is not automatically supporting self modifying
code, but that is a software issue and only applies to cached cores.

Finally, where did you get the idea that Luminary is owned by ARM?
ARM's investment in Luminary is only minimal - ask them or read ARM's
annual reports. It would be better if you sticked to the facts rather than just
make up exciting stories...

Wilco



Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics
"Wilco Dijkstra" wrote...
:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have never written that Luminary was "owned" by ARM.

Ownership and seed funding are two dramatically different statements and you
should take
care with what you claim I have written. I have never written or implied that
Luminary
was "owned" by ARM. Luminary is most definitely NOT owned by ARM, and I have
never
implied that.

Luminary is a startup company whose management appears to have a very close
relationship
with ARM and received seed funding from ARM. Yes, I have read Luminary's annual
report,
as well as their articles of incorporation, as I do with most startup
semiconductor
companies as part of my job. But I never wrote or even implied that Luminary is
"owned"
by ARM.

Because ARM was an initial investor in Luminary and their Cortex product line,
it has
already raised serious competitive concerns in the minds of potential licensees
of the
Cortex (you need to understand the business model to fully appreciate this). ST
and TI
can compete easily with Luminary because they have amongst the best process
technologies
available in the Microcontroller industry, and this issue was specifically
addressed in
my briefing with ST.

If you will read the linked article on the Luminary/Microchip lawsuit, you will
see
more. From my own experiences, I have had early dealings with a Luminary
representative
named Rebecca Rostetter, who's behavior pattern was much less than ethical
(which does
not imply that her unethical behavior reflects that of all of Luminary).

-Bill.




Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics

Quoted text here. Click to load it
just
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Never? Does "It now appears that Luminary Micro has a majority ownership by ARM -
whicn means that ARM Technologies is now competing with their own licensees!"
sound familiar? See
http://www.microcontroller.com/news/luminary_micro_lawsuit.asp

Quoted text here. Click to load it
should take
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Luminary
Quoted text here. Click to load it
never
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You have, see above.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
relationship
Quoted text here. Click to load it
annual report,
Quoted text here. Click to load it
semiconductor
Quoted text here. Click to load it
is "owned"
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Again, see above. If you had read ARM's reports you'd find a 274k investment in
2005.
The 2006 report mentions an additional investment. The total value of all such
investments
was 1920k, spread between Palmchip, Pixim, Coware and Luminary, so probably
around
500k for LM. Compare that with LM announcing a $14M second round of funding...

Quoted text here. Click to load it
it has
Quoted text here. Click to load it
licensees of the
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Please explain what LM has that other licensees don't get. LM was a lead partner
for the Cortex-M3, so they did get early access to the core, but that is nothing
special
in the ARM world. Being a lead partner gives you a time to market advantage but
has
also significant risks and costs (early silicon is buggy for example).

ST and TI
Quoted text here. Click to load it
technologies
Quoted text here. Click to load it
addressed in
Quoted text here. Click to load it

So there are no competitive concerns then?

Quoted text here. Click to load it
will see
Quoted text here. Click to load it
representative
Quoted text here. Click to load it
(which does
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's a serious accusation you're making, do you have any hard facts to prove
she was
unethical?

Wilco



Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics
"Wilco Dijkstra" wrote...
Quoted text here. Click to load it
just
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ARM -
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.microcontroller.com/news/luminary_micro_lawsuit.asp

That might have been valid over a year ago - with the Company's additional
funding, it
may not be so. I've modified the passage you referenced to reflect the current
status.
:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
relationship
annual
report,
Quoted text here. Click to load it
semiconductor
Quoted text here. Click to load it
is
"owned"
Quoted text here. Click to load it
in 2005.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
investments
around
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You are talking funding statistics, which is fine, but it does not completely
reflect
the back story. Unlike you, I'm trying to avoid making this a much bigger issue.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
line, it
has
Quoted text here. Click to load it
licensees of
the
Quoted text here. Click to load it
partner
Quoted text here. Click to load it
nothing
special
Quoted text here. Click to load it
but has
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You are asking for details which would require me to name names, which would
jepordize
my sources. If that is indeed your intention, I can't oblige you. Your followup
is
surely to bait me, but I wont bite.


Quoted text here. Click to load it
technologies
addressed
in
Quoted text here. Click to load it

There are MAJOR competitive concerns here.

As a startup, it appears that Luminary may have received more than the customary
amount
of help than any other semiconductor company has gotten. With such a vested
interest in
seeing the success of the Cortex at Luminary, it raises the question of whether
or not
Luminary received preferential treatment (which it appears they did).

The real issue here is the IP business model, which has a glass ceiling. Any IP
company
(such as ARM) can only grow so much by *only* selling just IP. Everyone in the
industry
knows that the real money is in making and selling semiconductors. But ARM is a
smart
company, and they know that blantantly engaging in a semiconductor spin-off can
be seen
as competing with their own licensees - at the very least, it can be used for
FUD (which
is a useful way of competing in front of inexperienced customers). However,
investing in
spin-offs can be a non-threatening way of breaking through that glass ceiling.

At the end of the day, the customer wins in this situation - the real churning
is within
the semiconductor community.

If you want to know more, take a day off and read up on the business models of
semiconductor companies, and pure-play IP companies. You'll find that just
figuring out
how to keep your fab at maximum profitability is less like economics and more
like
juggling. Winning in a market segment can often be based upon very slim factors
- as
slim as one less layer on your wafer process, or saving a fraction of a second
at final
sort, or a slightly tighter layout - or a better licensing agreement (which I
have
successfully negitiated for my clients).

The semiconductor business model is much more complex than most customers
realize.

I've been told, and it's probably true, that I report the news not from the
viewpoint of
a customer, but more from the viewpoint of a semiconductor company.


Quoted text here. Click to load it
will see
Quoted text here. Click to load it
representative
(which
does
Quoted text here. Click to load it
she was
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Of course I do! But if you are asking me to make private correspondance public,
then as
a member of the SPJ, and as a Primary Source, I must politely write "No".

Wilco, your behavior is what we commonly call "baiting the journalist", which is
to draw
me out, to get me to provide details that would hint at my sources. We both know
I'm
protected by the Massachusetts Shield Law, and I'm too experienced a journalist
to bite.

-Bill.





Re: New ARM Cortex Microcontroller Product Family from STMicroelectronics
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:43:06 GMT, "Wilco Dijkstra"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The term "Harvard architecture" was actually first coined in order to
distinguish computers using separate memories.  Separate memories
have, seemingly by definition to me, separate buses.  The use of the
term has evolved somewhat, though, so that some today actually appear
to use the term for architectures which merely use separate caches but
a single memory.

(Memory serving, I think a search for MARK-III and MARK-IV [which used
vacuum tubes] at Harvard would perhaps provide some details on the
origin of the term.)

So I would avoid your choice of "incorrect."  Frankly, separate
memories are still in use (PIC, for example, which requires separate
instructions defined to access program space data) and a term for that
is still needed, despite the fact that some attach other meanings to
the word.  I'd prefer to suggest a note is added explaining that there
are other uses (single memory, different caches, for example) for the
term and to provide several alternative uses, since practice seems to
have now acquired them.

However, I think Bill was coming from good territory.

Jon

Site Timeline