![clone x cross reference clone x cross reference](https://staticdelivery.nexusmods.com/mods/2229/images/1513/1513-1563392544-397527151.jpeg)
It has a higher maximum clock speed and faster Flash storage, with a decapped unit showing that they used two dies inside the package. As noted over at SMD Prutser in an article series, the GD32F103 appears to be a faster, more capable version of the STM32F103. Probably one of the more famous STM32 clone makers is GigaDevice with their GD32 MCUs. This can be fixed for example in OpenOCD by using a configuration script that specifies either no CPUTAPID (0), or this ID reported by the CS32 MCU. The reason for this is that the STM32F103 MCU reports the ID 0x1ba01477, confusing the programmer. An article over at CNXSoft provides some more details on this MCU.Ī major difference one will quickly encounter with this chip is when programming it and getting the message "UNEXPECTED idcode: 0x2ba01477".
![clone x cross reference clone x cross reference](https://pm1.narvii.com/6611/d60689056484021c77c327a1b684cb7d38fd29f5_hq.jpg)
Some of these are manufactured by CKS (中科芯微), a Chinese company who have apparently made a feature-complete version of the STM32F103, to the point where they have fixed some of the errata listed in the ST datasheet. Some of these MCUs may even be marked as the ST part, making them hard to identify conclusively. This clone essentially works like the real deal, and can run Blinky compiled for the STM32F103 just fine. This leaves the trickiest of the clones, in the form of the aforementioned CS32F103. Finding detailed information on it is hard as well. This is another clone that’s likely to bring you nothing but grief, as even when it does work, it is a cut-down version of the STM32F103 design, with missing features.
![clone x cross reference clone x cross reference](http://rdanderson.com/stargate/lexicon/images/chloe.jpg)
That’s not a legitimate ST parts code, and that should be the first tip. More insidious perhaps are the near-forgeries that at first glance may look like the real part, but are betrayed by the identification on them: ‘STM32FEBKC6’. It’s possible that these forgeries are in fact defective STM32F103 dies or similar that are being sold via less-than-legal channels.
#Clone x cross reference code#
As noted by Fraser, many of these parts cannot even be programmed properly, or even run code as simple as the universal ‘blinky’ example. These forgeries aren’t always fully functional. The forgeries carry the same marks on the packaging as the genuine STM32 parts, but can often be identified by the pattern of dimples on the packaging, or by the quality of the silkscreen. Anatomy of a forgery Good STM32 IC on the left, clone on the right, with extra dimples.Įarlier this year, Keir Fraser posted an informative summary of some fake STM32F103 ICs as found on so-called ‘Blue Pill’ and similar boards on their Github. Let’s take a look at which fakes and imitations are around, and what it means if you end up with one. That would be the sincerest form of flattery. For the imitations and clones that carry their own markings, things are a bit more fuzzy, as one could reasonably pretend that those companies just so happened to have designed MCUs that purely by coincidence happen to be fully pin- and register compatible with those highly popular competing MCU designs. The fakes are probably the most problematic, as those chips pretend to be genuine STM32 parts down to the markings on the IC package, while compatibility with the part they are pretending to be can differ wildly.
#Clone x cross reference series#
Hence it should come as no surprise that ST’s highly successful ARM-based series of microcontrollers (MCUs) has seen its share of imitations, clones and outright fakes. Yet it also drives the world of electronics. This phenomenon is the primary reason why so many terrible toys and video games have been produced over the years. Whenever a product becomes popular, it’s only a matter of time before other companies start feeling the urge to hitch a ride on this popularity.