Sign in
Search 68hc12
Subscribe to 68hc12
68hc12 by Keywords
68HC1 | 812A4 | 9S12DP256 | Bootloader | CodeWarrior | D60A | Debugger | DP256 | ECT | EEPROM | EVB | Flash | HC1 | HCS12 | I2C | IAR | ICC1 | Interrupts | LCD | M68KIT912DP256 | MC9S12DP256 | MC9S12DP256B | Metrowerks | Motor | MSCAN | Multilink | PLL | Quadrature | SDI | SPI | Transceiver | XFC
Ads
Discussion Groups
See Also
Discussion Groups | 68HC12 | Flash writing problem.
Join our technical discussions about Freescale Microcontrollers: M68HC12. (Freescale Semiconductor is a Subsidiary of Motorola).
Flash writing problem. - lenux22 - Aug 2 11:29:00 2004
|
There is 2 flash blocks on Motorla DG128: Flash Block 0 and Flash. Block 1. For Flash Block 1 i had set the security byte(0xFF0F) to 0xFE (security disabled) and set protection byte of block 0 (0xFF0D) to protect range 0xF000-0xFFFF (contains my bootrom and flash protections bytes). All working fine. But now I need to write flash block 1. But, then i erasing last address range of block 1, byte at address 0xFF0F also changed to 0xFF. What wrong whith it? changing. The byte at 0xFF0F can't be changed, becouse: 1) I writing flash 1, not flash 0. 0xFF0F address contained in flash 0. 2) Full 0xF000-0xFFFF range is protected. No bytes from it can not changing. |
|
|
(You need to be a member of 68hc12 -- send a blank email to 68hc12-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Flash writing problem. - Doron Fael - Aug 2 11:51:00 2004
|
Flash Block 0 corresponds to Pages 3C - 3F and Flash Block 1 corresponds to Pages 38 - 3B (counter intuitive than can be expected). Check figure 3-1 of: http://www.freescale.com/files/microcontrollers/doc/ref_manual/S12FTS128KV2.pdf This explains why the protection doesn't work as you expect it. You need to protect the same address range in Flash Block 0 (rather than Block 1). In order to protect the $F000 - FFFF range, you need to write the appropriate protection byte to $FF0D instead of $FF0C. Hope this helps, Doron Nohau Corporation HC12 In-Circuit Emulators www.nohau.com/emul12pc.html At 16:29 02/08/2004 +0000, you wrote: >There is 2 flash blocks on Motorla DG128: Flash Block 0 and Flash. >Block 1. For Flash Block 1 i had set the security byte(0xFF0F) to >0xFE (security disabled) and set protection byte of block 0 (0xFF0D) >to protect range 0xF000-0xFFFF (contains my bootrom and flash >protections bytes). All working fine. But now I need to write flash >block 1. But, then i erasing last address range of block 1, byte at >address 0xFF0F also changed to 0xFF. What wrong whith it? changing. >The byte at 0xFF0F can't be changed, becouse: >1) I writing flash 1, not flash 0. 0xFF0F address contained in flash >0. >2) Full 0xF000-0xFFFF range is protected. No bytes from it can not >changing. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
(You need to be a member of 68hc12 -- send a blank email to 68hc12-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Flash writing problem. - lenux22 - Aug 3 3:36:00 2004
|
Hello, Doron!
Thank you for answer. I forget to say, i program flash in special mode. Yes, i know about protection: 0xFF0C is protection byte for Flash Block 1 0xFF0D is protection byte for Flash Block 0. But I can't understand why secure byte changed (location 0xFF0F). Then I erasing Flash Block 1 (Flash Block 0 area 0xF000 is protected!), the byte 0xFF0F (this area in not banked!) is changed to 0xFF. And this is catastrophic for me - after this i need execute unprotection procedure described in AN2400/D. Maybe I do something wrong: I erase flash in Special mode and using in erasing procedure instead of: *((unsigned int *)(FLASH_ADDR)) = DUMMY_BYTE; FCMD = FLASH_ERASE; this code: FADDR = FLASH_ADDR; FDATA = DUMMY FCMD = FLASH_ERASE; In DG64 Flash Guide registers FADDR, FDATA mentioned as reserved registers. But all my erasing/writing procedures (in special mode!) of DG128's FLash Block 0 working fine for a year. --- In , Doron Fael <doronf@n...> wrote: > Flash Block 0 corresponds to Pages 3C - 3F and Flash Block 1 corresponds to > Pages 38 - 3B (counter intuitive than can be expected). > Check figure 3-1 of: > http://www.freescale.com/files/microcontrollers/doc/ref_manual/S12FTS1 28KV2.pdf > This explains why the protection doesn't work as you expect it. You need to > protect the same address range in Flash Block 0 (rather than Block 1). In > order to protect the $F000 - FFFF range, you need to write the appropriate > protection byte to $FF0D instead of $FF0C. > Hope this helps, > Doron > Nohau Corporation > HC12 In-Circuit Emulators > www.nohau.com/emul12pc.html > At 16:29 02/08/2004 +0000, you wrote: > >There is 2 flash blocks on Motorla DG128: Flash Block 0 and Flash. > >Block 1. For Flash Block 1 i had set the security byte(0xFF0F) to > > > >0xFE (security disabled) and set protection byte of block 0 (0xFF0D) > > > >to protect range 0xF000-0xFFFF (contains my bootrom and flash > > > >protections bytes). All working fine. But now I need to write flash > > > >block 1. But, then i erasing last address range of block 1, byte at > > > >address 0xFF0F also changed to 0xFF. What wrong whith it? changing. > > > >The byte at 0xFF0F can't be changed, becouse: > > > >1) I writing flash 1, not flash 0. 0xFF0F address contained in flash > >0. > > > >2) Full 0xF000-0xFFFF range is protected. No bytes from it can not > >changing. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
(You need to be a member of 68hc12 -- send a blank email to 68hc12-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: Flash writing problem. - Doron Fael - Aug 3 3:58:00 2004
|
Location 0xFF0F is part of Flash Block 1 - not Flash Block 0. In other words: You need to protect Flash Block 1 - not Flash block 0, in order to protect location 0xFF0F from being erased. Doron Nohau Corporation HC12 In-Circuit Emulators www.nohau.com/emul12pc.html At 08:36 03/08/2004 +0000, you wrote: >Hello, Doron! > >Thank you for answer. I forget to say, i program flash in special >mode. Yes, i know about protection: > >0xFF0C is protection byte for Flash Block 1 > >0xFF0D is protection byte for Flash Block 0. > >But I can't understand why secure byte changed (location 0xFF0F). > >Then I erasing Flash Block 1 (Flash Block 0 area 0xF000 is >protected!), > >the byte 0xFF0F (this area in not banked!) is changed to 0xFF. And >this is catastrophic for me - after this i need execute unprotection >procedure described in AN2400/D. Maybe I do something wrong: > >I erase flash in Special mode and using in erasing procedure instead >of: > > *((unsigned int *)(FLASH_ADDR)) = DUMMY_BYTE; > FCMD = FLASH_ERASE; > >this code: >FADDR = FLASH_ADDR; >FDATA = DUMMY >FCMD = FLASH_ERASE; > >In DG64 Flash Guide registers FADDR, FDATA mentioned as reserved >registers. But all my erasing/writing procedures (in special mode!) >of DG128's FLash Block 0 working fine for a year. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
Stellaris® MCU Family: New Parts, New Package, New Price.
(You need to be a member of 68hc12 -- send a blank email to 68hc12-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Flash writing problem. - lenux22 - Aug 3 5:39:00 2004
|
Maybe i stupid, but I can't understand how it can be. Text on page 15 of FTS 128K User guide is describe Flash Block 0 holding protection bytes for all other Flash blocks. And security byte is one for all blocks. And it's located at Flash Block 0. Page 15. Text under Table 3.1 : Security information that allows the MCU to prevent intrusive access to the Flash module is stored in the Flash Protection/Options field of Flash block 0 as described in Table 3-1. --- In , Doron Fael <doronf@n...> wrote: > Location 0xFF0F is part of Flash Block 1 - not Flash Block 0. > In other words: > You need to protect Flash Block 1 - not Flash block 0, in order to protect > location 0xFF0F from being erased. > Doron > Nohau Corporation > HC12 In-Circuit Emulators > www.nohau.com/emul12pc.html > At 08:36 03/08/2004 +0000, you wrote: > >Hello, Doron! > > >Thank you for answer. I forget to say, i program flash in special > >mode. Yes, i know about protection: > > >0xFF0C is protection byte for Flash Block 1 > > >0xFF0D is protection byte for Flash Block 0. > > >But I can't understand why secure byte changed (location 0xFF0F). > > >Then I erasing Flash Block 1 (Flash Block 0 area 0xF000 is > >protected!), > > >the byte 0xFF0F (this area in not banked!) is changed to 0xFF. And > >this is catastrophic for me - after this i need execute unprotection > >procedure described in AN2400/D. Maybe I do something wrong: > > >I erase flash in Special mode and using in erasing procedure instead > >of: > > > *((unsigned int *)(FLASH_ADDR)) = DUMMY_BYTE; > > FCMD = FLASH_ERASE; > > >this code: > >FADDR = FLASH_ADDR; > >FDATA = DUMMY > >FCMD = FLASH_ERASE; > > >In DG64 Flash Guide registers FADDR, FDATA mentioned as reserved > >registers. But all my erasing/writing procedures (in special mode!) > >of DG128's FLash Block 0 working fine for a year. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
(You need to be a member of 68hc12 -- send a blank email to 68hc12-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: Flash writing problem. - Doron Fael - Aug 3 6:11:00 2004
|
I am sorry. My mistake. My email from yesterday contained the right information. The email from today was wrong (I got confused between Block 1 and Block 0). Which S12DG128 mask set are you using? I believe early mask sets (0L85D) did not have Flash protection and security fully working. Maybe this is the source of your problem. Hope this helps, Doron Nohau Corporation HC12 In-Circuit Emulators www.nohau.com/emul12pc.html At 10:39 03/08/2004 +0000, you wrote: >Maybe i stupid, but I can't understand how it can be. Text on page 15 >of FTS 128K User guide is describe Flash Block 0 holding protection >bytes for all other Flash blocks. And security byte is one for all >blocks. And it's located at Flash Block 0. >Page 15. Text under Table 3.1 : >Security information that allows the MCU to prevent intrusive access >to the Flash module is stored in the Flash Protection/Options field of >Flash block 0 as described in Table 3-1. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
(You need to be a member of 68hc12 -- send a blank email to 68hc12-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Flash writing problem. - lenux22 - Aug 3 7:40:00 2004
|
Yes, i have 0L85D mask. :( But Freescale web-site on DG128 page provide erratas only for mask sets 0L40K. :( --- In , Doron Fael <doronf@n...> wrote: > I am sorry. My mistake. > My email from yesterday contained the right information. The email from > today was wrong (I got confused between Block 1 and Block 0). > Which S12DG128 mask set are you using? I believe early mask sets (0L85D) > did not have Flash protection and security fully working. Maybe this is the > source of your problem. > Hope this helps, > Doron > Nohau Corporation > HC12 In-Circuit Emulators > www.nohau.com/emul12pc.html |
|
|
Stellaris® MCU Family: New Parts, New Package, New Price.
(You need to be a member of 68hc12 -- send a blank email to 68hc12-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: Flash writing problem. - Steve Russell - Aug 3 13:31:00 2004
|
Hi, Using the Freescale keyword search for 0L85D I got: http://www.freescale.com/files/microcontrollers/doc/errata/MSE9S12DT128B_0L85D.pdf They keep shuffling things around... Hope this helps Steve Russell Nohau Emulators At 05:40 AM 8/3/2004, lenux22 wrote: >Yes, i have 0L85D mask. :( But Freescale web-site on DG128 page >provide erratas only for mask sets 0L40K. :( > > >--- In , Doron Fael <doronf@n...> wrote: > > I am sorry. My mistake. > > My email from yesterday contained the right information. The email >from > > today was wrong (I got confused between Block 1 and Block 0). > > > Which S12DG128 mask set are you using? I believe early mask sets >(0L85D) > > did not have Flash protection and security fully working. Maybe this >is the > > source of your problem. > > > Hope this helps, > > Doron > > Nohau Corporation > > HC12 In-Circuit Emulators > > www.nohau.com/emul12pc.html > >Yahoo! Groups Links |
(You need to be a member of 68hc12 -- send a blank email to 68hc12-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )