> As a side note: replacing the chip took longer than expected. I accidentally ordered a GD32F350R8T6, instead of the GD32F350RBT6 that was in the device originally. These two types differ in their flash sizes: 64 kB vs 128 kB. Don’t ask me why GigaDevice thought this naming scheme and this font was a good idea

An 8 looking almost exactly like a B. What a terrible idea.

▲

05 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Blame STM. Those clones copy (..among other things) the naming convention from STMicroelectronics parts like stm32f103c8t6/stm32f103cBt6. Guess what's the only difference between those.

Oh, and .. since STM likes binning/product segmentation, there's a good chance that if you ignore the reported flash size and still try to flash the full 128K, it works on those models..

▲

djmips 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Also the self patching back into protected mode! ugh - good thing they ordered more than one!

▲

grishka 2 days ago | parent [-]

Doesn't the protection usually work such that it prevents reading the firmware but still allows you to erase and reflash it?

	▲	fusslo 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Assuming the other commenter is correct and the mcu is a clone of an ST product, then it's possible that the protection are fuses that destroy the pathways to the memory. They're one-time writable and cannot be undone. At my work that is how we protect our firmware with a similar ST product. I'm not sure how it works in-silicon. Would be interesting to know how... but it's sunday afternoon