Why isn't there any EEPROM in STM32F4 MCUs?
$begingroup$
Why isn't there any EEPROM in the STM32F4 series MCUs?
Mostly I have Microchip MCUs and they have EEPROM available in them, but I just found out that it is not available in the STM32F4 MCUs... And it looks like not in other families as 'F0, F1, F2 and F3 either.
Is there a way around to save parameter values in the absence of an EEPROM?
microcontroller stm32 stm32f4 eeprom non-volatile-memory
edited 7 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1,60031422
asked 22 hours ago
scico111scico111
31511
$endgroup$
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Why isn't there any EEPROM in the STM32F4 series MCUs?
Mostly I have Microchip MCUs and they have EEPROM available in them, but I just found out that it is not available in the STM32F4 MCUs... And it looks like not in other families as 'F0, F1, F2 and F3 either.
Is there a way around to save parameter values in the absence of an EEPROM?
microcontroller stm32 stm32f4 eeprom non-volatile-memory
edited 7 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1,60031422
asked 22 hours ago
scico111scico111
31511
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
"What could be a good reason?" questions do not fit within the Stack Exchange mission, and "such an important memory area" is very application-determined. Looks like no EEPROM in the STM32L4's either, but the L0's and L1's have it. Or you can add an extra chip if you have a need for which emulation won't work.
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
22 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
That would be entirely application dependent. Since you've said nothing about what you are trying to do for a question which would have to consider the specifics in extreme detail, no one can help you.
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
21 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
The most likely explanation is that the application(s) for which the chip was initially developed did not require it. Remember, EVERY chip ever developed was designed for a specific large-volumne application, and only later added to the manufacturer's general catalog. The overhead of a new chip design is just too high to allow designing chips speculatively.
$endgroup$
– Dave Tweed♦
21 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
"such an important memory area" - important to who? I'm currently working on a project using an STM32F4 device and I would have no use whatsoever for a little bit of internal EEPROM. The extra cost it would add to the device would certainly make a difference though.
$endgroup$
– brhans
21 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Small amounts of external EEPROM are not terribly expensive.
$endgroup$
– mkeith
13 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Why isn't there any EEPROM in the STM32F4 series MCUs?
Mostly I have Microchip MCUs and they have EEPROM available in them, but I just found out that it is not available in the STM32F4 MCUs... And it looks like not in other families as 'F0, F1, F2 and F3 either.
Is there a way around to save parameter values in the absence of an EEPROM?
microcontroller stm32 stm32f4 eeprom non-volatile-memory
edited 7 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1,60031422
asked 22 hours ago
scico111scico111
31511
$endgroup$
Why isn't there any EEPROM in the STM32F4 series MCUs?
Mostly I have Microchip MCUs and they have EEPROM available in them, but I just found out that it is not available in the STM32F4 MCUs... And it looks like not in other families as 'F0, F1, F2 and F3 either.
Is there a way around to save parameter values in the absence of an EEPROM?
microcontroller stm32 stm32f4 eeprom non-volatile-memory
microcontroller stm32 stm32f4 eeprom non-volatile-memory
edited 7 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1,60031422
asked 22 hours ago
scico111scico111
31511
edited 7 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1,60031422
asked 22 hours ago
scico111scico111
31511
edited 7 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1,60031422
edited 7 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1,60031422
edited 7 hours ago
Peter Mortensen
1,60031422
1,60031422
asked 22 hours ago
scico111scico111
31511
asked 22 hours ago
scico111scico111
31511
asked 22 hours ago
scico111scico111
31511
31511
3
$begingroup$
"What could be a good reason?" questions do not fit within the Stack Exchange mission, and "such an important memory area" is very application-determined. Looks like no EEPROM in the STM32L4's either, but the L0's and L1's have it. Or you can add an extra chip if you have a need for which emulation won't work.
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
22 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
That would be entirely application dependent. Since you've said nothing about what you are trying to do for a question which would have to consider the specifics in extreme detail, no one can help you.
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
21 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
The most likely explanation is that the application(s) for which the chip was initially developed did not require it. Remember, EVERY chip ever developed was designed for a specific large-volumne application, and only later added to the manufacturer's general catalog. The overhead of a new chip design is just too high to allow designing chips speculatively.
$endgroup$
– Dave Tweed♦
21 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
"such an important memory area" - important to who? I'm currently working on a project using an STM32F4 device and I would have no use whatsoever for a little bit of internal EEPROM. The extra cost it would add to the device would certainly make a difference though.
$endgroup$
– brhans
21 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Small amounts of external EEPROM are not terribly expensive.
$endgroup$
– mkeith
13 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
3
$begingroup$
"What could be a good reason?" questions do not fit within the Stack Exchange mission, and "such an important memory area" is very application-determined. Looks like no EEPROM in the STM32L4's either, but the L0's and L1's have it. Or you can add an extra chip if you have a need for which emulation won't work.
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
22 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
That would be entirely application dependent. Since you've said nothing about what you are trying to do for a question which would have to consider the specifics in extreme detail, no one can help you.
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
21 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
The most likely explanation is that the application(s) for which the chip was initially developed did not require it. Remember, EVERY chip ever developed was designed for a specific large-volumne application, and only later added to the manufacturer's general catalog. The overhead of a new chip design is just too high to allow designing chips speculatively.
$endgroup$
– Dave Tweed♦
21 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
"such an important memory area" - important to who? I'm currently working on a project using an STM32F4 device and I would have no use whatsoever for a little bit of internal EEPROM. The extra cost it would add to the device would certainly make a difference though.
$endgroup$
– brhans
21 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Small amounts of external EEPROM are not terribly expensive.
$endgroup$
– mkeith
13 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
"What could be a good reason?" questions do not fit within the Stack Exchange mission, and "such an important memory area" is very application-determined. Looks like no EEPROM in the STM32L4's either, but the L0's and L1's have it. Or you can add an extra chip if you have a need for which emulation won't work.
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
"What could be a good reason?" questions do not fit within the Stack Exchange mission, and "such an important memory area" is very application-determined. Looks like no EEPROM in the STM32L4's either, but the L0's and L1's have it. Or you can add an extra chip if you have a need for which emulation won't work.
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
22 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
That would be entirely application dependent. Since you've said nothing about what you are trying to do for a question which would have to consider the specifics in extreme detail, no one can help you.
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
21 hours ago
$begingroup$
That would be entirely application dependent. Since you've said nothing about what you are trying to do for a question which would have to consider the specifics in extreme detail, no one can help you.
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
21 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
The most likely explanation is that the application(s) for which the chip was initially developed did not require it. Remember, EVERY chip ever developed was designed for a specific large-volumne application, and only later added to the manufacturer's general catalog. The overhead of a new chip design is just too high to allow designing chips speculatively.
$endgroup$
– Dave Tweed♦
21 hours ago
$begingroup$
The most likely explanation is that the application(s) for which the chip was initially developed did not require it. Remember, EVERY chip ever developed was designed for a specific large-volumne application, and only later added to the manufacturer's general catalog. The overhead of a new chip design is just too high to allow designing chips speculatively.
$endgroup$
– Dave Tweed♦
21 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
"such an important memory area" - important to who? I'm currently working on a project using an STM32F4 device and I would have no use whatsoever for a little bit of internal EEPROM. The extra cost it would add to the device would certainly make a difference though.
$endgroup$
– brhans
21 hours ago
$begingroup$
"such an important memory area" - important to who? I'm currently working on a project using an STM32F4 device and I would have no use whatsoever for a little bit of internal EEPROM. The extra cost it would add to the device would certainly make a difference though.
$endgroup$
– brhans
21 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Small amounts of external EEPROM are not terribly expensive.
$endgroup$
– mkeith
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Small amounts of external EEPROM are not terribly expensive.
$endgroup$
– mkeith
13 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
All STM32 MCUs have self-programmable flash memory. If you need to store user settings, you can store them in an area of flash.
ST provides a library to perform EEPROM emulation on the STM32F4. (There are similar libraries for most of their other parts as well.) Even if you don't plan on using that library, their application note explaining how it works may be interesting to read.
answered 22 hours ago
duskwuffduskwuff
17.6k32752
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
This is correct but it is a poor substitute. The CPU cannot execute while the flash is being written or erased, and erasing takes a long time. There are tricks (multi flash banks, ram functions) but none are as tidy as just having an internal eeprom like AVR and PIC.
$endgroup$
– Jon
22 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Jon of 577 Microchip PIC32 and Atmel 32 bit MCUs currently in production, only 63 have Data EEPROM. microchip.com/ParamChartSearch/…
$endgroup$
– Bruce Abbott
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Jon, Not sure why you believe "The CPU cannot execute while the flash is being written or erased..." I have used this method on an F1 device. If the CPU had stopped during a write to Flash, I think I would have noticed
$endgroup$
– user28910
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user28910 it’s not a matter of opinion. It is in the product documentation. Perhaps you were using a dual bank device (the larger sized ones). These can execute out of one bank while writing to another but this means your need to keep all the relevant code in the correct bank.
$endgroup$
– Jon
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Bruce Abbott interesting point. I knew there were chips without eeprom but didn’t realise it was so extensive.
$endgroup$
– Jon
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
EEPROM is very expensive in terms of cell size (leading to a larger die and hence higher cost). Manufacturers started trying to get rid of EEPROM as soon as the first Flash based controllers were released.
Especially when you consider the varying user requirements for the amount of EEPROM, it makes more sense to emulate in Flash, despite the limitations. As opposed to (for example) having a fixed 512 bytes of EEPROM, when one customer is only using 20 bytes, but paying for 512.
answered 15 hours ago
elchambroelchambro
911
New contributor
elchambro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There is however data flash, which behaves quite similar to EEPROM, in terms of write cycles etc. But often requires many bytes to be erased, such as chunks of 8 bytes at a time or so. Whereas program flash will have huge erase sizes.
$endgroup$
– Lundin
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If having non-volatile memory which is programmable and erasable to the byte level is important (as opposed to Flash memory, which must have entire sectors/pages erased), have a look at the STM32L0 and STM32L1 series. They have true data EEPROM embedded on it.
answered 4 hours ago
JarhmanderJarhmander
34317
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
StackExchange.schematics.init();
});
}, "cicuitlab");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "135"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f423293%2fwhy-isnt-there-any-eeprom-in-stm32f4-mcus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
All STM32 MCUs have self-programmable flash memory. If you need to store user settings, you can store them in an area of flash.
ST provides a library to perform EEPROM emulation on the STM32F4. (There are similar libraries for most of their other parts as well.) Even if you don't plan on using that library, their application note explaining how it works may be interesting to read.
answered 22 hours ago
duskwuffduskwuff
17.6k32752
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
This is correct but it is a poor substitute. The CPU cannot execute while the flash is being written or erased, and erasing takes a long time. There are tricks (multi flash banks, ram functions) but none are as tidy as just having an internal eeprom like AVR and PIC.
$endgroup$
– Jon
22 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Jon of 577 Microchip PIC32 and Atmel 32 bit MCUs currently in production, only 63 have Data EEPROM. microchip.com/ParamChartSearch/…
$endgroup$
– Bruce Abbott
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Jon, Not sure why you believe "The CPU cannot execute while the flash is being written or erased..." I have used this method on an F1 device. If the CPU had stopped during a write to Flash, I think I would have noticed
$endgroup$
– user28910
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user28910 it’s not a matter of opinion. It is in the product documentation. Perhaps you were using a dual bank device (the larger sized ones). These can execute out of one bank while writing to another but this means your need to keep all the relevant code in the correct bank.
$endgroup$
– Jon
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Bruce Abbott interesting point. I knew there were chips without eeprom but didn’t realise it was so extensive.
$endgroup$
– Jon
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
All STM32 MCUs have self-programmable flash memory. If you need to store user settings, you can store them in an area of flash.
ST provides a library to perform EEPROM emulation on the STM32F4. (There are similar libraries for most of their other parts as well.) Even if you don't plan on using that library, their application note explaining how it works may be interesting to read.
answered 22 hours ago
duskwuffduskwuff
17.6k32752
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
This is correct but it is a poor substitute. The CPU cannot execute while the flash is being written or erased, and erasing takes a long time. There are tricks (multi flash banks, ram functions) but none are as tidy as just having an internal eeprom like AVR and PIC.
$endgroup$
– Jon
22 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Jon of 577 Microchip PIC32 and Atmel 32 bit MCUs currently in production, only 63 have Data EEPROM. microchip.com/ParamChartSearch/…
$endgroup$
– Bruce Abbott
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Jon, Not sure why you believe "The CPU cannot execute while the flash is being written or erased..." I have used this method on an F1 device. If the CPU had stopped during a write to Flash, I think I would have noticed
$endgroup$
– user28910
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user28910 it’s not a matter of opinion. It is in the product documentation. Perhaps you were using a dual bank device (the larger sized ones). These can execute out of one bank while writing to another but this means your need to keep all the relevant code in the correct bank.
$endgroup$
– Jon
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Bruce Abbott interesting point. I knew there were chips without eeprom but didn’t realise it was so extensive.
$endgroup$
– Jon
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
All STM32 MCUs have self-programmable flash memory. If you need to store user settings, you can store them in an area of flash.
ST provides a library to perform EEPROM emulation on the STM32F4. (There are similar libraries for most of their other parts as well.) Even if you don't plan on using that library, their application note explaining how it works may be interesting to read.
answered 22 hours ago
duskwuffduskwuff
17.6k32752
$endgroup$
All STM32 MCUs have self-programmable flash memory. If you need to store user settings, you can store them in an area of flash.
ST provides a library to perform EEPROM emulation on the STM32F4. (There are similar libraries for most of their other parts as well.) Even if you don't plan on using that library, their application note explaining how it works may be interesting to read.
answered 22 hours ago
duskwuffduskwuff
17.6k32752
edited 21 hours ago
answered 22 hours ago
duskwuffduskwuff
17.6k32752
answered 22 hours ago
duskwuffduskwuff
17.6k32752
answered 22 hours ago
duskwuffduskwuff
17.6k32752
17.6k32752
7
$begingroup$
This is correct but it is a poor substitute. The CPU cannot execute while the flash is being written or erased, and erasing takes a long time. There are tricks (multi flash banks, ram functions) but none are as tidy as just having an internal eeprom like AVR and PIC.
$endgroup$
– Jon
22 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Jon of 577 Microchip PIC32 and Atmel 32 bit MCUs currently in production, only 63 have Data EEPROM. microchip.com/ParamChartSearch/…
$endgroup$
– Bruce Abbott
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Jon, Not sure why you believe "The CPU cannot execute while the flash is being written or erased..." I have used this method on an F1 device. If the CPU had stopped during a write to Flash, I think I would have noticed
$endgroup$
– user28910
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user28910 it’s not a matter of opinion. It is in the product documentation. Perhaps you were using a dual bank device (the larger sized ones). These can execute out of one bank while writing to another but this means your need to keep all the relevant code in the correct bank.
$endgroup$
– Jon
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Bruce Abbott interesting point. I knew there were chips without eeprom but didn’t realise it was so extensive.
$endgroup$
– Jon
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
7
$begingroup$
This is correct but it is a poor substitute. The CPU cannot execute while the flash is being written or erased, and erasing takes a long time. There are tricks (multi flash banks, ram functions) but none are as tidy as just having an internal eeprom like AVR and PIC.
$endgroup$
– Jon
22 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Jon of 577 Microchip PIC32 and Atmel 32 bit MCUs currently in production, only 63 have Data EEPROM. microchip.com/ParamChartSearch/…
$endgroup$
– Bruce Abbott
20 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Jon, Not sure why you believe "The CPU cannot execute while the flash is being written or erased..." I have used this method on an F1 device. If the CPU had stopped during a write to Flash, I think I would have noticed
$endgroup$
– user28910
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user28910 it’s not a matter of opinion. It is in the product documentation. Perhaps you were using a dual bank device (the larger sized ones). These can execute out of one bank while writing to another but this means your need to keep all the relevant code in the correct bank.
$endgroup$
– Jon
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Bruce Abbott interesting point. I knew there were chips without eeprom but didn’t realise it was so extensive.
$endgroup$
– Jon
4 hours ago
7
7
$begingroup$
This is correct but it is a poor substitute. The CPU cannot execute while the flash is being written or erased, and erasing takes a long time. There are tricks (multi flash banks, ram functions) but none are as tidy as just having an internal eeprom like AVR and PIC.
$endgroup$
– Jon
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is correct but it is a poor substitute. The CPU cannot execute while the flash is being written or erased, and erasing takes a long time. There are tricks (multi flash banks, ram functions) but none are as tidy as just having an internal eeprom like AVR and PIC.
$endgroup$
– Jon
22 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@Jon of 577 Microchip PIC32 and Atmel 32 bit MCUs currently in production, only 63 have Data EEPROM. microchip.com/ParamChartSearch/…
$endgroup$
– Bruce Abbott
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Jon of 577 Microchip PIC32 and Atmel 32 bit MCUs currently in production, only 63 have Data EEPROM. microchip.com/ParamChartSearch/…
$endgroup$
– Bruce Abbott
20 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@Jon, Not sure why you believe "The CPU cannot execute while the flash is being written or erased..." I have used this method on an F1 device. If the CPU had stopped during a write to Flash, I think I would have noticed
$endgroup$
– user28910
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Jon, Not sure why you believe "The CPU cannot execute while the flash is being written or erased..." I have used this method on an F1 device. If the CPU had stopped during a write to Flash, I think I would have noticed
$endgroup$
– user28910
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user28910 it’s not a matter of opinion. It is in the product documentation. Perhaps you were using a dual bank device (the larger sized ones). These can execute out of one bank while writing to another but this means your need to keep all the relevant code in the correct bank.
$endgroup$
– Jon
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user28910 it’s not a matter of opinion. It is in the product documentation. Perhaps you were using a dual bank device (the larger sized ones). These can execute out of one bank while writing to another but this means your need to keep all the relevant code in the correct bank.
$endgroup$
– Jon
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Bruce Abbott interesting point. I knew there were chips without eeprom but didn’t realise it was so extensive.
$endgroup$
– Jon
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Bruce Abbott interesting point. I knew there were chips without eeprom but didn’t realise it was so extensive.
$endgroup$
– Jon
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
EEPROM is very expensive in terms of cell size (leading to a larger die and hence higher cost). Manufacturers started trying to get rid of EEPROM as soon as the first Flash based controllers were released.
Especially when you consider the varying user requirements for the amount of EEPROM, it makes more sense to emulate in Flash, despite the limitations. As opposed to (for example) having a fixed 512 bytes of EEPROM, when one customer is only using 20 bytes, but paying for 512.
answered 15 hours ago
elchambroelchambro
911
New contributor
elchambro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There is however data flash, which behaves quite similar to EEPROM, in terms of write cycles etc. But often requires many bytes to be erased, such as chunks of 8 bytes at a time or so. Whereas program flash will have huge erase sizes.
$endgroup$
– Lundin
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
EEPROM is very expensive in terms of cell size (leading to a larger die and hence higher cost). Manufacturers started trying to get rid of EEPROM as soon as the first Flash based controllers were released.
Especially when you consider the varying user requirements for the amount of EEPROM, it makes more sense to emulate in Flash, despite the limitations. As opposed to (for example) having a fixed 512 bytes of EEPROM, when one customer is only using 20 bytes, but paying for 512.
answered 15 hours ago
elchambroelchambro
911
New contributor
elchambro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There is however data flash, which behaves quite similar to EEPROM, in terms of write cycles etc. But often requires many bytes to be erased, such as chunks of 8 bytes at a time or so. Whereas program flash will have huge erase sizes.
$endgroup$
– Lundin
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
EEPROM is very expensive in terms of cell size (leading to a larger die and hence higher cost). Manufacturers started trying to get rid of EEPROM as soon as the first Flash based controllers were released.
Especially when you consider the varying user requirements for the amount of EEPROM, it makes more sense to emulate in Flash, despite the limitations. As opposed to (for example) having a fixed 512 bytes of EEPROM, when one customer is only using 20 bytes, but paying for 512.
answered 15 hours ago
elchambroelchambro
911
New contributor
elchambro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
EEPROM is very expensive in terms of cell size (leading to a larger die and hence higher cost). Manufacturers started trying to get rid of EEPROM as soon as the first Flash based controllers were released.
Especially when you consider the varying user requirements for the amount of EEPROM, it makes more sense to emulate in Flash, despite the limitations. As opposed to (for example) having a fixed 512 bytes of EEPROM, when one customer is only using 20 bytes, but paying for 512.
answered 15 hours ago
elchambroelchambro
911
New contributor
elchambro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 15 hours ago
elchambroelchambro
911
New contributor
elchambro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 15 hours ago
elchambroelchambro
911
answered 15 hours ago
elchambroelchambro
911
911
New contributor
elchambro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
elchambro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
elchambro is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
There is however data flash, which behaves quite similar to EEPROM, in terms of write cycles etc. But often requires many bytes to be erased, such as chunks of 8 bytes at a time or so. Whereas program flash will have huge erase sizes.
$endgroup$
– Lundin
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is however data flash, which behaves quite similar to EEPROM, in terms of write cycles etc. But often requires many bytes to be erased, such as chunks of 8 bytes at a time or so. Whereas program flash will have huge erase sizes.
$endgroup$
– Lundin
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
There is however data flash, which behaves quite similar to EEPROM, in terms of write cycles etc. But often requires many bytes to be erased, such as chunks of 8 bytes at a time or so. Whereas program flash will have huge erase sizes.
$endgroup$
– Lundin
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
There is however data flash, which behaves quite similar to EEPROM, in terms of write cycles etc. But often requires many bytes to be erased, such as chunks of 8 bytes at a time or so. Whereas program flash will have huge erase sizes.
$endgroup$
– Lundin
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If having non-volatile memory which is programmable and erasable to the byte level is important (as opposed to Flash memory, which must have entire sectors/pages erased), have a look at the STM32L0 and STM32L1 series. They have true data EEPROM embedded on it.
answered 4 hours ago
JarhmanderJarhmander
34317
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If having non-volatile memory which is programmable and erasable to the byte level is important (as opposed to Flash memory, which must have entire sectors/pages erased), have a look at the STM32L0 and STM32L1 series. They have true data EEPROM embedded on it.
answered 4 hours ago
JarhmanderJarhmander
34317
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If having non-volatile memory which is programmable and erasable to the byte level is important (as opposed to Flash memory, which must have entire sectors/pages erased), have a look at the STM32L0 and STM32L1 series. They have true data EEPROM embedded on it.
answered 4 hours ago
JarhmanderJarhmander
34317
$endgroup$
If having non-volatile memory which is programmable and erasable to the byte level is important (as opposed to Flash memory, which must have entire sectors/pages erased), have a look at the STM32L0 and STM32L1 series. They have true data EEPROM embedded on it.
answered 4 hours ago
JarhmanderJarhmander
34317
answered 4 hours ago
JarhmanderJarhmander
34317
answered 4 hours ago
JarhmanderJarhmander
34317
answered 4 hours ago
JarhmanderJarhmander
34317
34317
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f423293%2fwhy-isnt-there-any-eeprom-in-stm32f4-mcus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
"What could be a good reason?" questions do not fit within the Stack Exchange mission, and "such an important memory area" is very application-determined. Looks like no EEPROM in the STM32L4's either, but the L0's and L1's have it. Or you can add an extra chip if you have a need for which emulation won't work.
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
22 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
That would be entirely application dependent. Since you've said nothing about what you are trying to do for a question which would have to consider the specifics in extreme detail, no one can help you.
$endgroup$
– Chris Stratton
21 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
The most likely explanation is that the application(s) for which the chip was initially developed did not require it. Remember, EVERY chip ever developed was designed for a specific large-volumne application, and only later added to the manufacturer's general catalog. The overhead of a new chip design is just too high to allow designing chips speculatively.
$endgroup$
– Dave Tweed♦
21 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
"such an important memory area" - important to who? I'm currently working on a project using an STM32F4 device and I would have no use whatsoever for a little bit of internal EEPROM. The extra cost it would add to the device would certainly make a difference though.
$endgroup$
– brhans
21 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Small amounts of external EEPROM are not terribly expensive.
$endgroup$
– mkeith
13 hours ago