Skip to main content
C
Coratron
Visitor II
January 12, 2022
Solved

BOOT_LOCK documentation issue

  • January 12, 2022
  • 2 replies
  • 1143 views

Hi,

The general documentation for the STM32G0 family mentions BOOT_LOCK all over the place where this is actually only available on STM32G0x1, not STM32G0x0. I hope this can be fixed and will help some other developers in the meantime.

Some of the documents affected:

AN5145

AN5096

AN2606 : Pattern 11 mentions BOOT_LOCK. Perhaps another pattern without this should be listed.

Cheers.

    This topic has been closed for replies.
    Best answer by Bubbles

    Hi @Coratron​ ,

    basically the G0x0 works exactly the same as G0x1 with the exception of the features that are not supported. It even shares the same bootloader code AFAIK. The application notes try to describe the full featured product and then the RM/DS must be used to see what features are missing. For example lots of functions are not available on small packages (I think the G0 goes don to 8 pins) but that is not mentioned in any AN, user must see the DS to see what functions are available in each particular device variant.

    I'm sorry, but the AN would become very convoluted and hard to digest if all exceptions for derived products were described.

    But I'll try to add some note to AN5145, that seems appropriate.

    BR,

    J

    2 replies

    B
    BubblesAnswer
    ST Employee
    January 13, 2022

    Hi @Coratron​ ,

    basically the G0x0 works exactly the same as G0x1 with the exception of the features that are not supported. It even shares the same bootloader code AFAIK. The application notes try to describe the full featured product and then the RM/DS must be used to see what features are missing. For example lots of functions are not available on small packages (I think the G0 goes don to 8 pins) but that is not mentioned in any AN, user must see the DS to see what functions are available in each particular device variant.

    I'm sorry, but the AN would become very convoluted and hard to digest if all exceptions for derived products were described.

    But I'll try to add some note to AN5145, that seems appropriate.

    BR,

    J

    C
    CoratronAuthor
    Visitor II
    January 14, 2022

    @JHOUD​ 

    Yes, I understand covering all the possible combinations of families would be a nightmare. I am aware the G0x0 has less peripherals than the G0x1. The lower digit indicates this and ST always has a clear table with peripherals available on the different families of the chip.

    ​

    The only confusion came from that pattern table in my case. Just a "*" style note​ there would clarify things.

    ​

    Thanks for doing this on behalf of other developers, it's all clear to me now, I'm just trying to help people that will come across the same situation :)

    ​

    Kind Regards​

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement