Re: AVR Flash EMI Susceptibility?
From: Jim Granville (no.spam_at_designtools.co.nz)
Date: 11/17/04
- Previous message: SpaceInvader: "Re: Emulating ADDWFC on 16F PIC uCONTROLLER"
- In reply to: jetmarc: "Re: AVR Flash EMI Susceptibility?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:56:04 +1300
jetmarc wrote:
>>susceptibility (Murphy says we can't), I guess I'll be forced to forgo the
>>flexibility of in-the-field serial reprogramming and disable
>>self-programming via the fuse bits. I *think* self programming via the SPM
>>instruction is the only way to do a page erase.
>
>
> I dont want to scare you, but a fuse-bit is a only a flash cell, too.
> If the EMI conditions are such that the chip does an SPM to the wrong
> page or where no SPM instruction actually was, it can just as well do
> an SPM where the fuse-bit said "NO".
>
> As long as the voltage pumps are on-chip, things can go wrong. Less
> logic to operate them can make it less probable (eg chip without SPM
> funcionality), but only removing them completely will make the chip
> safe (eg external VPP like in the old days).
>
> Thats my opinion only, certainly flash mcu manufacturers have a different
> one.
I think this is a key reason we see a re-emergence of ROM flow
variants of FLASH uC. These days, it is very unlikely they are
completely different die/mask flows, most efficent is to disable the
voltage pumps, and skip the FLASH cycle testing = lower outgoing price,
AND the highest field reliability.
I believe some Automotive customers demand high voltage PGM enable, for
similar reasons.
-jg
- Previous message: SpaceInvader: "Re: Emulating ADDWFC on 16F PIC uCONTROLLER"
- In reply to: jetmarc: "Re: AVR Flash EMI Susceptibility?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|