Lpc2000

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "robertadsett" <subscriptions@a...> 
> Not all of them do, in fact ST pops immediately to mind
> as one who has done a very similar thing.

If you can tell me which device in particular, I would like to look
into it when get bored.  My previous experience was with ST10 and its
errata sheet was nothing like that for 2105 in terms of the types of
bugs in silicon.

>I can understand your security concerns even if I don't share
>them but your angst over them not exposing the flash programming
>algorithm seems to be overdone.

Off top of my head:

1/  The entire on-chip flash can be destroyed by scribbling over the
just one location in memory with some random value.  [PLLs and WDs
incorporate feed sequences, but this self destruct sequence has none.]

2/  The sector bit maps are all over the place.  In the case of 2105
its 16 sectors are mapped to the top and bottom 8 bits, leaving out 16
bits in the middle.  [The product appears to be in its infant stages
of development in relation to maturity of design.]

3/  It appears that to program the flash charge pump cycle parameters
are required. [Using inappropriate values here could result in frying
the part for good.]

It is in consumers' interest to know about things like this that can
destroy the LPC.  [LPC was abandoned for laboratory kits that students
load and run programs.]

It is quite possible for hardware manufacurers and software providers
to blame each other for field failures in the light of the above.

About 10% of LPC2105 parts with bootloader versions prior to 1.52 did
fail in the field according to Philips.  One wonders what happened in
the field resulting in Philips stating this in the errata sheet.

Jaya