Skip to main content
PHolt.1
Senior
December 8, 2025
Solved

STM32F417 to STM32F437 - is the AF mapping identical for pins present in the 417?

  • December 8, 2025
  • 7 replies
  • 910 views

This previous thread refers

https://community.st.com/t5/stm32-mcus-products/stm32f4xx-does-going-up-a-package-pin-count-impact-pin-af/td-p/862282

The 437 is curiously a very close superset of the 417. Apart from the extra 64k RAM, the only difference is which ADC channel is used to read Vbat. And of course the device ID is changed. This makes the 437 a very easy and useful upgrade from the 407/417.

My Q is whether AF mapping is really identical, so that a 417 project can access the additional 437 peripherals (e.g. SPI4,5,6) by going to a larger pin count package.

Comparing the data sheets, it does not appear that the 437 gives you any new peripheral access without going to a larger package i.e. it does not offer any new AF flexibility. For example you cannot access SPI4-6 on the QFP100.

I am using the 437 for the extra 64k RAM. I check the device ID. This is 0x413 or 0x419 for the 417 or 437. If I detect the 437 I move the general stack 64k higher and fix up the Vbat measurement.

Best answer by waclawek.jan

You could also compare the xml files from the "mcu" directory of your CubeMX installation, for the given two mcus.

JW

7 replies

TDK
Super User
December 10, 2025

What does the data sheet say?

"If you feel a post has answered your question, please click ""Accept as Solution""."
Visitor II
December 10, 2025

And after you compare the data sheets, check the errata documents just in case there is some difference there.

Sco
ST Employee
December 10, 2025

To check the datasheet and compare the AFs directly will be a safe way for this topic.

waclawek.jan
waclawek.janBest answer
Super User
December 10, 2025

You could also compare the xml files from the "mcu" directory of your CubeMX installation, for the given two mcus.

JW

PHolt.1
PHolt.1Author
Senior
December 12, 2025

That's clever :)

I don't have MX set up, however.

I had a look at the data sheets and AFAICT the 437 offers no mapping options above the 417, within a given package (in this case QFP100).

 

waclawek.jan
Super User
December 12, 2025

https://github.com/STMicroelectronics/STM32_open_pin_data

Enjoy! :‑)

(There's a conversion program at the STM32 part of my website which generates a cvs from these xml, importable to spreadsheet programs; but it's an .exe binary so I won't link to it here).

JW

Andrew Neil
Super User
December 18, 2025
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked.A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work.
PHolt.1
PHolt.1Author
Senior
December 18, 2025

I have discovered an interesting thing on the 32F437: it has three more SPIs (total six) but only SPI4 is accessible on the QFP100 package, on Port E.

Option 1 is PE2 PE4 PE5 but you lose the ETH interface (PE2 is used for that) but SPI4 can also come out on PE12 PE13 PE14.

Together with this

https://community.st.com/t5/stm32-mcus-products/32f417-mapping-spi1-to-the-swd-debug-pins-pb3-pb5-how-can-this/td-p/864085

you can get a total of five SPIs in the QFP100 package.