AVR Flash EMI Susceptibility?

Humm... this is interesting. Have you posted this question or problem on the

Does the chip have any sort of brownout protection enabled? If you were in brownout, you can't count on the SPM doing what the software intended.

Like the Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times"!!!

yet? Have now, thanks for the tip.

Cheers

-- Alf Katz snipped-for-privacy@remove.the.obvious.ieee.org

Thanks, John, I do have brownout detection enabled, but a good idea given the information. If we can get it to recur the next time we're doing susceptibility (Murphy says we can't), I guess I'll be forced to forgo the flexibility of in-the-field serial reprogramming and disable self-programming via the fuse bits. I *think* self programming via the SPM instruction is the only way to do a page erase.

Cheers,

-- Alf Katz snipped-for-privacy@remove.the.obvious.ieee.org

I dont want to scare you, but a fuse-bit is a only a flash cell, too. If the EMI conditions are such that the chip does an SPM to the wrong page or where no SPM instruction actually was, it can just as well do an SPM where the fuse-bit said "NO".

As long as the voltage pumps are on-chip, things can go wrong. Less logic to operate them can make it less probable (eg chip without SPM funcionality), but only removing them completely will make the chip safe (eg external VPP like in the old days).

Thats my opinion only, certainly flash mcu manufacturers have a different one.

Marc

I think this is a key reason we see a re-emergence of ROM flow variants of FLASH uC. These days, it is very unlikely they are completely different die/mask flows, most efficent is to disable the voltage pumps, and skip the FLASH cycle testing = lower outgoing price, AND the highest field reliability. I believe some Automotive customers demand high voltage PGM enable, for similar reasons.

-jg