I2C devices with unique identifiers.

Uwe Bonnes wrote:
>How about using a uC with built-in unique ID? E.g. STM32F?

Valid for a new design. This is a respin of an existing product, and
the CPU (untouchable) does not have an ID.
--
Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
  return address is invalid ]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:38:13 -0400, Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com>
wrote:

>Uwe Bonnes wrote:
>>How about using a uC with built-in unique ID? E.g. STM32F?
>
>Valid for a new design. This is a respin of an existing product, and
>the CPU (untouchable) does not have an ID.

Wait a minute, they are doing a respin and the old uC is untouchable???
Hand them a flashlight and a crowbar.  They are in dire need.  Even in
aerospace and medical any respin is effectively a new design.  New pass =
on
ALL qualifications.

?-)

On 8/16/2012 3:09 AM, josephkk wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:38:13 -0400, Roberto Waltman<usenet@rwaltman.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Uwe Bonnes wrote:
>>> How about using a uC with built-in unique ID? E.g. STM32F?
>>
>> Valid for a new design. This is a respin of an existing product, and
>> the CPU (untouchable) does not have an ID.
>
> Wait a minute, they are doing a respin and the old uC is untouchable???
> Hand them a flashlight and a crowbar.  They are in dire need.  Even in
> aerospace and medical any respin is effectively a new design.  New pass on
> ALL qualifications.
>
> ?-)

I understand that perfectly.  I don't know why they are doing a board 
spin, but they don't want to touch any code they don't have to.  Using a 
different MCU chip can wreak havoc on code if it turns out to have 
unsuspected hardware dependencies.

"There's many a slip, twixt cup and lip."

Rick

rickman wrote:
>I understand that perfectly.  I don't know why they are doing a board 
>spin, but they don't want to touch any code they don't have to.  Using a 
>different MCU chip can wreak havoc on code if it turns out to have 
>unsuspected hardware dependencies.

Precisely. The new and old boards share 80% of the peripherals, and
that means a lot of the code is already written, tested and known to
be reliable, if we stay with the same CPU.
--
Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
  return address is invalid ]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:19:49 -0400, Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com>
wrote:

>rickman wrote:
>>I understand that perfectly.  I don't know why they are doing a board=20
>>spin, but they don't want to touch any code they don't have to.  Using =
a=20
>>different MCU chip can wreak havoc on code if it turns out to have=20
>>unsuspected hardware dependencies.
>
>Precisely. The new and old boards share 80% of the peripherals, and
>that means a lot of the code is already written, tested and known to
>be reliable, if we stay with the same CPU.

Well alrighty then.  Family compatible could be potentially acceptable
then.  Depends a lot on just which peripherals are onboard the MCU.

?-)