Protected FLASH Pages with Processor Expert Failed Programming with protected FLASH If I try to re-program the protected bootloader with Segger J-Link (both in CodeWarrior and Eclipse/KDS with GDB), then the download silently fails. The effect is that somehow the application on the board does not match what it should be. Looking at the Console view, it shows that erase has failed (but no real error reported):-(: Jlink: Failed to erase sectors 0 @ address 0x00000000 (Algo135: Flash protection violation.
Keil uvision 4 C51 V 9. Keygen.rar - keil C51 REALVIEW ARM MDK MDK3.0以上最新注册机,,绝对能用。. You can buy a Segger JTAG J-Link clone for few USD on ebay, aliexpress, dx,. Macromedia Studio v8 With Working Keygen Dreamweaver v8 Flash v8 and Fireworks v8. Segger j flash arm v4. 00a keygen and crack instant download from cracks fm free download now 3. In any event, consider this a heads up on a great deal. Note that the J-Flash license is keyed to a J-Link BASE hardware unit.
Flash is write-protected.). ERROR Algo135 Flash Protection Violation about failed FLASH Programming What I need is to unprotect the memory and then erase it. Erasing The Segger J-Link features a very fast programming. Part of that speed is that the Segger firmware checks each FLASH page if it really needs to be programmed, and only then it erases and reprogrammed that page. So downloading twice the same application actually will not touch the FLASH memory at all.
Additionally, it does not do a complete erase of the device: it only programs the pages I’m using in my application. The advantage of that is first speed. And it does not erase the application data I’m using in non-volatile memory (see ““). However, sometimes I really need to clear all my data in FLASH too, and then I need to erase all my FLASH pages on the device. Segger has product named ‘J-Flash’ which is used to Flash and Erase devices outside of an IDE. There is a free-of-charge ‘Lite’ version available for download from Segger. This utility is not intended to be used for production.
With this utility I have a GUI to erase and program my device. Erasing Device with Flash File to Target Again, this does not work if the device is locked. CodeWarrior has another feature called ‘Target Task’ which can be used to erase/unsecure (if your device is supported), see ““. So I need to use a different tool to unlock and unprotect my device: the J-Link Commander. Unlocking and Erasing with J-Link Commander To unlock the device, Segger has a utility named ‘J-Link Commander’, available from. The binary is ‘jlink.exe’ on Windows and is a command line utility. To unlock the device use unlock Kinetis.
Unlocking and Erasing with J-Link Commander Summary In order to re-program the protected FLASH sectors with Segger J-Link, I need first to unlock and mass erase the device. For this, there is the J-Link Commander utility which has a command line interface to unprotect and erase the device. For erasing only, the J-Flash (and Lite) is a very useful tool, especially to get a ‘clean’ device memory. To me, the Segger way and tools are very powerful. In this case, things are very flexible, but not that obvious.
So I hope this post can help others to get his device unlocked and erased. Happy Erasing ?. Hi Erich, I am trying to use similar procedure as yours to “erase my secure Kinetis KV31 device”, I use J-link utility – unfortunately I can’t erase it due to device is secured. J-Linkunlock Kinetis Found SWD-DP with ID 0x2BA01477 Unlocking deviceO.K. J-Linkerase Erasing device (MKV31F512xxx12). Error: Failed to erase sectors 8 @ address 0x00004000 (Algo135: Flash pro tection violation. Flash is write-protected.) Info: J-Link: Flash download: Total time needed: 1.155s (Prepare: 0.689s, Compar e: 0.000s, Erase: 0.067s, Program: 0.000s, Verify: 0.000s, Restore: 0.398s) ERROR: Erase returned with error code -5.
J-Link Is there a way to unlock secured device and erase it? I am OK with deleting my flash I just want to reprogram device again.
Thanks for you advice. HI Erich I Had the “Device is secured” problem on 2 of 5 MKV31F devices.
Using universal multilink i had no way to unlock it,and the odd thing is that one of the devices was new,so i was not able to flash it for the very first time.The project that i tred to load was working fine with other boards let’s call it “Aproject”. I built an almost empty project,let’s call it “Dummy” and i have found a difference in Hex files: In Aproject the byte ad address 0x40C=0x7E and in “Dummy” 0x40C=0xFE.,at least the SEC bits were Unsecured,i will check why i haveKEYEN Field= Backdoor key access disabled Furthermore the reset pin toggles continously(it has 10K to VDD,100nF to GND). I dont ‘have a Segger J-Link,but almost for shure i should have some demo board with a JLink on board.
Do you think i can do something? This is a 100 pins IC,and i ‘m am scared that after changed it by hand,i could face the same problem. Many thanks once more. Hi Diego, yes, using a J-Link might work for you. The ‘real’ J-Links have stronger pull down circuit I think so would be better. But give it a try. Ultimately, I always have J-Link at hand for these kind of things.
The reason why you see the reset pin toggling is that the device is continuously resetting: it starts, then runs into a hard fault, restarts again, etc. You might try as well to pull down (e.g. Push button) the reset line while you connect to the target. This would give the debug probe a chance or larger time window to connect to the microcontroller and halt it. You migt try this several times. I hope this helps, and good luck!
No, there is no utility for this as far as I know. So in your case the reset pin is still active after power-up until it reads the FOPT register.
With JTAG you can reset the device using the JTAG command. So if you are using JTAG, you should be able to connect. If you only have SWD, then you need to be able to connect with the debugger during this tiny window.
So I would try to debug it while the microcontroller is powered up. You might need 10, 50, 100 or more tries, but I think this is what you can do. The other way is that you add a button to the reset pin and pull it to GND.
Give it a try. Dear Erich, regarding your post I’m having a similar problem with internal KE02 EEPROM.
Around this time last year we first heard of the ESP8266 WiFi module. It’s still a great little module, providing WiFi connectivity for all those Internet of Things things at a price point of just $5. It’s an attractive price for a great module with a huge community pumping out a lot of projects for the platform.
It’s called the EMW3165, and like the ESP it provides WiFi connectivity for a bunch of wireless projects. It’s much, much more capable with an STM32F4 ARM Coretex M4 microcontroller, a ‘self hosted’ networking library, more RAM, more Flash, and more GPIOs. How much, you’re probably asking yourself. It’s a dollar more than the ESP8266. Goes over all the gritty details. While this chip has 3.6V I/Os, there are some 5V tolerant pins – a boon for the Arduino crowd.
It’s also surprisingly low power for something that connects to an 802.11n network. The real bonus here is the STM32F4 core – that’s a very, very powerful microcontroller, and if you want a 2-component WiFi webcam build, this is the part you should use. There will be a lot of interesting builds using this part.
Posted in, Tagged, Post navigation. To be fair, the folks behind ESP8266 have provided decent English documentation for the chip, since it was released: and there is a strong community at as well.
As an electronics engineer, and probably the folks at Hackaday as well (where i first read about this chip), I got excited about ESP8266, at a time when it was barely documented (in Chinese or English), because it was obviously a game changer; ESP8266 has great specifications and such a simple BOM that for first time, you think about integrating this chip directly into your design, without using a module or a degree in RF black magic, and have WiFi functionality with a 160MHz CPU, ADC, low power options, great form factor, and great WiFi range for probably less than $2. I can’t see how EMW3165 comes close in any of the measures.
In the book of electronics, David always slays Goliath, not the other way round. No, that’s completely FALSE where an FCC-certified module is concerned. But it is pretty much true for CE certification (there are a few exceptions), though that will change soon as the EU snuggles up to the FCC rules.
An FCC-certified module may be used in a system WITHOUT FURTHER CERTIFICATION if it is used according to the limitations and guidelines listed in the module certification. That’s a simple fact.
The “real” problem is lazy certifications done by device or module makers. Certification testing is not done.by. the FCC: The FCC only approves or shoots down whatever is submitted. The FCC mandates that the testing must be done by a certified lab, but does not specify the maximum testing to be done, just the minimum. I’ve had to reject attractive modules because their tests were designed by idiots (which the FCC approved with joy because they’re the easiest to check), and could only be reproduced using laboratory equipment, and never as part of a high-volume system. A good certification test will define the complete operating envelope within which the module will meet and maintain FCC certification. What range of VCC?
How much noise on VCC? Floating ground OK? Antenna load limitations?
SWR limitations? It takes a whopping big test to cover all this terrain, and such tests are EXPENSIVE. Some (most?) module vendors are simply too lazy or too cheap to do a “real world” certification. Which then puts the burden on the module user (the system designer), since there is no way to economically manufacture a system where each and every individual box will match the lab conditions of the original (cheap) module certification testing. So someone dead-set on using a module with a lousy cert must then do a full cert of their own proving the final system will meet FCC requirements over the full range of manufacturing variations. So, if you see a module that has a 10-page FCC certification, just walk on by, no matter how good the price looks. A “decent” FCC module certification package will be at least 30 pages long, and often 50-100.
![Segger J Flash Arm Keygens Maj Segger J Flash Arm Keygens Maj](http://cache.amobbs.com/bbs_upload782111/files_44/ourdev_668848Q159BO.jpg)
Now, one neat trick I’ve seen system vendors do (and have done myself) is stick a module inside another module, then do their own module cert that covers their own system manufacturing tolerances, which then lets them use that module in a wider range of their own systems (and keeps the module from their competitors). This may be the only reason for “short” module certs to exist: Such modules aren’t really intended to be used on their own. The next time you open up a router, check to see if there’s a PCB between the radio module and the main board: That’s a sure sign that a “modularized module” was used. There are a lot of “ESP8266 killers” out there already – for example the CC3200, with arguably better support, better documentation, more professional distribution channels etc.
But people keep ranting and raving about the ESP8266 in the hacker community just because of price, and that won’t change as long as the price of alternatives is higher. No matter how crap it is, if your price is the lowest you win a lot of attention, and even though the ESP8266 is quite usable and good for many things, many people just don’t put a price on their time and effort and don’t understand “you get what you pay for” usually applies. CC3200 it’s barely used by Energia IDE, has almost un-existant support in arduino community, almost un-existant shields or usable board for a microcontroller enthusiast. I have an energia based board with this chip and I get many disconnections, also note that it’s power it’s much less.
Texas support it’s not the best around, I mean the disastrous experience with CC3100 that has several hardware bugs and texas never helped to solve. It’s also costly. The ESP8266 it’s another story, it can works as standalone module, it cost nothing and has a strong user support. There’s no comparison! The real issue is volume: “ePacket” delivery means they open a sea or air container, and don’t close it until it is full of mail, after which the entire container is addressed to a US Post Office Distribution Center and put on a ship (big/heavy packages) or aircraft (small/light packages). The air/sea containerized traffic between China and the US dwarfs that between any other two countries, and the economies of repetition and scale apply. Other nations may be paying to send partially-filled containers, instead of waiting weeks or months for them to fill completely.
I really don’t know how the US can afford their end of the deal unless the US imposes draconian restrictions on the content of the containers (such as pre-sorting and bundling, like it does for national junk mail rates). I suspect it may also have something to do with international postal regulations, about which I haven’t a clue.
No good alternatives. For.years., the arm-gcc toolchain was just left as an exercise to the reader. Now, someone, I think ARM themselves, maintains current builds on launchpad. Atmel Studio is a giant download and is fairly oddly designed internally. Every chip vendor has some reskin of Eclipse, and most are pretty hamfisted. Energy Micro, Freescale have their own. Then there are the third parties, Embedded Artists and others.
And then there’s IAR with their own whole deal. I think SEGGER is doing their own no-bullshit barebones IDE, but it’s Windows only. Then there’s CoIDE, but I dunno how well that is maintained. Even then, you have to deal with Makefiles, which are terrible.
Alternatives of Gradle, Maven, SCONS, Ant, etc are all so much worse, in terms of clarity and accessibility. And then if you want a particular vendors implementation on the CMSIS, you have to slog through their site and find it, get it set up, etc. This is why Microchip persists, despite having fairly old MCU cores. Their MPLAB X IDE works very well out-of-the-box, based on NetBeans which is pretty clean and straightforward, and is a free and easy download. Arudino IDE is horrible, but it works.
But it’s horrible. But it just barely works. At some point, someone made an Arduino makefile, and some command lino ino-build tools. I don’t think either of them ended up getting maintained at all, though. I actually prefer a GCC + makefile setup to using IAR/Keil or other IDEs. I can use the ATOM IDE (cause I’m a hipster wannabe) and even nemiver (Linux) as a gdb frontend. I have a lot of respect for Eclipse but I do not enjoy using it.
I used to be big on the Microchip product line and they definitely get points in my book for the MPLABX IDE. But the facts are that ARM micros are much more popular, better designed and exhibit lower power. I’m also not a big fan of intentionally crippling the free version of their gnu (fsf based) mips-gcc compiler (for the pic32 parts) to make money. That along with ridiculously buggy hardware has kept me away.
The toolchain hasn’t really been the issue for a while now at least, as long as you’re OK picking between a dozen different options The real problem is the lack of any kind of consistency in the header files, linker scripts, and startup file (crt.o). Even from the same vendor you can find multiple competing and incompatible sets of files out there for a single chip.
This shouldn’t be hard, but I don’t think ARM per se cares that much because what really matters to them are the vendor’s IDEs. I’d love to be able to take the time to gather and refactor all of these things (for all the vendors’ chips), and arrange them so building a baseline project (e.g. With sane defaults for RAM/flash setup) is no more complicated than building for an AVR: arm-gcc -mmcu stm32f415 main.c. Time, however, is the issue.
There are a lot off better versions of stuff that don’t run linux. I bought a very good vacuum cleaner,better than most, I am very satisfied, and surprise: it doesnt run linux.
And it has all of TWO buttons, instead of a ssh interface, even though i could probably patch in an arduino with a network shield to interface two buttons to the ssh, or even dick around with kernel patches to support external buttons. Neither does it run windows, which means i dont get to dick around with licensing/pirating issues, or drivers.
It does the job it was designed for, it sucks the dirt, all without running linux. If this chip can talk to other chips and connect to wifi, screw linux.
Linux is just one way to get stuff done, and one shouldnt care HOW the job gets done, provided IT DOES. Besides, a wifi camera is only one suggested project idea, and i have a brain full of others, who would probably be ill suited to run on a linux platform. I like linux a lot for various reasons, and i hate linux a lot for others. My feelings are equaly distributed for any operating system i tried out. But please dont bring the argument that it sucks for not using whatever construct you might be more familiar with, ok? Forget any kind of golden standards, and admit that you are a lazy fuck that doesnt want to learn something new.
It is ok, we are all lazy fucks who dont want to reinvent the wheel. It should be socially acceptable. Can’t say I’m surprised, though. No one else should be either. WiFi chipsets typically have no built-in hardware checks that ensure you’ve set the TX frequency within an acceptable range. “Acceptable” meaning one allowed by the FCC (or your particular regulatory agency), rather than the limits of the hardware. With that range possibly differing by region, or being changed over time, enforcing or limiting that in hardware could lead to multiple hardware revisions.
And that’s expensive. Instead, limits are enforced in software. At very least, the part of the software that handles frequency setting is in a proprietary BLOB, so that the check cannot easily be bypassed. And the details of the low-level hardware registers protected by NDA, so that one cannot easily write a replacement for the BLOB. So you want a cheap, programmable transceiver, that’s either FCC pre-certified, or can be built into a certifiable product? The price of that is a BLOB. Technically speaking, there is no reason why this should be more expensive than esp8266.
The specs sucks. It doesn’t have more ram or higher cpu speed nor better power consumption. 260mA on receive? That’s totally crazy. Compare with 80mA on esp8266 and my esp8266 module works all the way down to 2.2V.
The technology behind esp8266 is light years more advanced than emw3166. There is very little documentation put out on emw3166, compared to esp8266. The thing about these big companies is they do not give a sheet about the community because they don’t make money on it. They released this “killer” through an unknown module house like Mxchip. I bet they will discontinue this module a year from now, because the specs are just not competitive enough. Esp8266 has certainly raised the bar. The newest one, directly from Espressif, is genuinely FCC certified.
The pricing is similar (actually a bit lower IIRC). It’s called the “WROOM” module. If you’ve worked in-depth with the ESP8266 modules, it also has quite a few useful pins that many of the configurations leave out because, well, I guess whoever pinned the old modules out was in a rush and didn’t bother figuring out which pins were actually useful (TOUT is a good example – it’s the one ADC pin on the ESP8266, and most of the variants don’t have it). Of course, I also trust that the antenna and front end are matched better than the generic “chinese hobbyist” (usually by “AI” or whatever) ESP8266 modules, given that it’s actually FCC certified. With that said, having a FCC certified module doesn’t automatically preclude you from /all/ FCC testing. What’s better than just FCC certification, Espressif is now shipping their modules with Japanese TELEC certification. I’m seeing few local distributors for about $6-7, So living in Japan I can design with $3 modules from eBay, and chances are if I ever make something into Kickstarter, I would only have to quickly check my product against regulations for unintentional radiators, slap the $6 WROOM-02 onto it, and ship right away.
Local regulations here don’t require the whole product to be certified as a radio device if the radio module is separate and has valid certification. What revolutionary product to actually design in my backyard is an entirely different difficulty though. The need to pass verification require time and money. The certification only applies to the component that was certified by the FCC Just because the sub assemblies used in the design are FCC certified, does not mean your completed design is. There are no FCC test firm accrediting bodies or telecommunications certifications bodies in China but there is OCA, BSMI and NCC. If they give their certification, a validation is still required under Section 2.902 47 CFR. If a foreign manufacturer wants FCC certification, they can send samples to the FCC for certification.
The entities mentioned in Section 2.948 47 CFR outside the US cannot give FCC certification. They are “telecommunications certifications bodies” or “test firm accrediting bodies”. If they are outside the US they can only give their own certification (OCA, BSMI, NCC or other foreign cert). That certification then requires further verification from the FCC, which simplifies obtaining FCC certification.
As Mark mentioned above, if a foreign manufacturer wants FCC certification, they can send samples to the FCC for certification. See the following to learn more about the process. Why don’t you just immediately skip any articles titled “New Part Day” then, rather than complain? Because there’s no surprise, every one will be written similar to this here’s a new part, here’s what it does. It’s not an ad, I highly doubt anyone’s paid for it, there was no bias in comparing it’s specs. And it’s something almost everyone in the community is excited to hear. It’s one of my favorite regular features.
All the contest BS is pretty advertorial, in the same sense that TV networks advertise their own shitty shows in the comercial break for their own shows, but, that is what it is. Same as you, I can easily identify them and just skip those articles. Here is the FCC application: So, it is FCC indeed, unlike the cheap ESP8266 modules with FCC engraved on the shield but without ID. However, it is only 13.5 dBm output power vs. 19.5 dBm for the ESP8266, so forget about controlling a quad with it, you won’t go past 5070 m. No serious figures regarding power consumption yet. But there is no way a module with 2 chips (including an STM32F4), 2 crystals and an SPI Flash will be cheaper than the single ESP8266 chip with a single crystal and SPI Flash.
Given that the STM23F4 is already $4-$5 in medium qty, this module won’t go below $5 soon, whereas you can get ESP8266 at half this price today. Of course, not FCC-compliant. This is basically a slightly more powerful version of the Spark photon for less than half the price. I like the fact that it uses an STM32F411I’m already familiar with that part and reference manuals/software frameworks (STM32Cube) already exist for that part.
Two concerns that I have are: – I see no guides/tutorials/ proper documentation on using the MICO/MXCHIP framework – The README also says that it supports the IAR Workbench IDE. Providing GCC/Gnu Make support is critical to the openness and accessibility of this part. Please correct me if I’m wrong as I’d very much like to be wrong about these points. Personally I’m very skeptical of these built-in modules with soc and radio all built-in.
I know this is old school but I very much prefer using an AT command based WIFI to serial module that takes care of the WIFI stuff along with my favourite microcontroller. This way I don’t have to learn how to use a gazillion different frameworks/SDKs for every flavour of the month WIFI+ Micro SOC. The ‘HiFlying LPT-100 / USR-IOT USR-WIFI232T’ modules are a great example. They are small, low power, have relatively decent documentation, can be configured via web interface or AT command sets, cost $10, and can be added to any micro of your choice. The HLK-RM04 is another good choice if power consumption is not a concern. A $9 hell yeah why not use the CHIP for WiFi heavy processing some non-real time IO stuff.
You can also use many programming languages; python, node, go e.t.c not just c/c. You also have access to tonnes of pre-made apps and libraries. The Wt toolkit for example is a great framework for building IOT apps.
If you need real-time add a cheap cortex-m0 like the stm32f0 which still comes with plenty of peripherals, and IO’s in many packages and form factors. I’ve recently become less skeptical of the $9 CHIP due to free-electrons announcing that they’ll be involved in the project. I have a lot of respect for the guys at Free Electrons. I cant see how this is going to exite the community the way the esp8266 did. There was no documentation or support so it was a challenge taken up by the community. Now we have a very cheap solution that can be used in different ways by different people. And now the community is driving the manufacturers to get more out there to fill demand.
You cant plan for that sort of take up. But they wished they could.
Which is why this is being released. It wont replace the esp8266. We have to wait for the next piece of obscure hardware to come along and capture the communities attention. My problem with the ESP (I have a handful of them and have had very mixed success) is that its great for hacking, for low-cost and for doing one-offs or POCs.
But would you really design something that needs to have consistent and trustable hardware that is buyable for years? Do you think this module or its api/interfaces will be stable for long enough to justify designing things that use the ESP board?
I feel uneasy betting on it. It came, another will too. It will then be old and busted and something else will be teh new hotness;) we should demand that things we support are going to be around for long enough to justify the effort to learn them and design with/for them. And so, I’ll continue to play around with modules like these, but I will not commit to designing a longer term product that depends on these kinds of things. If the vendor can commit to long term stability and support, that will get me seriously interested.
I personally use an ST-LINK/V2 (ISOL) mainly because it has that isolation (working with industrial machines and different power nets here). The non isolated version is not bad either, but a little bit expensive for what it is. Definately the best, cheapest and easyest way to get some form of USB-JTAG/SWD for Cortexies is to just buy one of the STM32 Discovery or Nucleo EvalBoards. I do really like the 429I-DISCOVERY for it’s small graphic touch display and quite large 64MBit RAM, but if you only want the ST-LINK portion of the board, there are of course cheaper boards, i think they start at around 6-7$an they all have the same ST-LINK as the stand-alone thingie. Of course, if you need deeper debugging (ETM, CodeCoverage,) there is almost no way around spending 1K$ on the debugger.
(There are some places where you can rent an ULINK PRO on a monthly basis too. We just had such a case where we had rented 10 PRO debuggers running in parallel to increase the chances to find a nasty spurious bug.). I think we can celebrate a new part without shitting on something else, no? Last fall I ordered a Spark Core & Photon, and a handful of ESP8266s. Initially the ESPs seemed like a joke, but I persevered, and evaluated different frameworks, and started getting good results with custom firmware.
I’m not laughing now, I’m planning a short run of something using ESP8266s. To me, yes we will each have our favourite parts, but wifi iot connectivity is going to be a commodity soon; and most parts will have more or less the same range of capabilities, so given that all ‘surviving’ wifi modules are reliable and certified, the choice will come down to availability, price and ease of development. Having a big base of working examples is a serious advantage. The EMW3165 FCC results are terrible. I think this module is not suited for mass production.
What a shame that it’s using a Broadcom part. This EMW3165 part is managing only a measly 13dBm, whereas ESP8266 does more than 20dBm.
This has gotta be the worst killer ASSassin i have ever seen, cus it’s freaking dead on arrival. I bet that this MXCHIP module house is a run by a bunch of pure marketers without any idea what hardware or engineering is. Too bad, Broadcom is also going the way of Intel when under Otellini, except that Intel is alive today.
Broadcom is now being sold to Avago, sub-con their product marketing to China, and wants to claim to be a killer with this big ASS module, while startups like Espressif run circles around them. ESP8266 killer or not, I’m going to give this module a try.
I’ve been following the comments on this page for a while and it appears that no one actually has a module to play with just yet. I am sure a lot of people just ordered them from Seeed after this post went live, so hopefully in a couple weeks there will be a lot of hacking taking place. I went ahead and set up a forum at to hopefully help nourish community development on this module once it makes it way to the hands of hackers.
For now I’m just collecting links to useful resources, but once my modules arrive I’ll be posting my successes and failures. Anyone and everyone welcome to join in:-).