| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| lance4glas |
Posted - 03/26/2019 : 23:02:14
Image Insert:
6245 bytes
Download Attachment: 
108050
The accompanying attachment is the Data Sheet for the Winbond W27C512 eeprom.
There is NO reference to any other devices other than the W27C512 which comes in 3 different packaging options.
EXACTLY where was the "Class=27sf512" obtained from ?
Am I missing something somewhere ?
I am having recognition problems with this chip as well as others and need to modify the devices.txt files to properly recognize and write to these chips.
Thanks in advance.
|
| 23 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| anniel |
Posted - 04/03/2019 : 04:37:41
quote:
Originally posted by lance4glas
quote:
Originally posted by laptech
As users of the device, we do not need to know the specifics of the 'Class' designation in the devices.txt file.
Therefore, why is knowing what the 'Class'designation is so important to you?
If you need a new chip added to the devices.txt file, just leave a request in the forum.
Simply because I am one who does not desire to rely on the knowledge of others , especially those who elect to keep their knowledge close to their vest.
WHAT EXACTLY is THE PROBLEM about trying to ascertain the CLASS of ANY chip ????????????????????????
Is THIS info "CLASSIFIED " - does one need to exhibit Security Clearance data to access the " CLASS " file data ???????????????
When I served in the US armed forces - US Army - MY security clearance was designated as " Top Secret "
BTW - "Thank You " for your intelligent response and informative input regards how the " Class " data is ascertained.
If you want to share your knowledge here you are welcome to do so anytime!
There is no problem to ascertain a class, everything is in the name of each class. No secrets or obfuscation, all in plain text and in the clear!
Nothing classified to see but if you really must look for yourself I am sure that with your security clearance you can easily gain access to the technology to decompile and reverse-engineer such a simple program. |
| anniel |
Posted - 04/03/2019 : 04:36:11
quote:
Originally posted by laptech
As users of the device, we do not need to know the specifics of the 'Class' designation in the devices.txt file.
Therefore, why is knowing what the 'Class'designation is so important to you?
If you need a new chip added to the devices.txt file, just leave a request in the forum.
+1 |
| anniel |
Posted - 04/03/2019 : 04:35:16
quote:
Originally posted by lance4glas
quote:
Originally posted by laptech
The 'Class'reference in the devices.txt file relates to the pinout type of the chip and the chip's pin assignment/pin configuration, not the actual chip itself.
The SST 27SF512 is a 28 pin p-dip IC. The Winbond W27C512 is also a 28 pin p-dip IC. If you look at the data sheets of both chip's you will notice both are EEPROM's and that the pin assignment/pin configurations are also the same.
Now it is my understanding that the firmware chip inside the Gq-4X has a pinout definition list of all the common IC's. Many different manufacturer IC's use the same pinout configuration and therefore it is not practical to have every IC ever made to be in the firmware chip. So what the eprom programmer manufacturers do is find the IC's that are common to one another and use just one of them as the reference chip which is then used to define the pinout assignment of the programmer. Thus meaning, in this case, every chip that has the same pinout assignment/pin configuration of a SST 27SF512 is assigned that name in the 'Class' field so the programmer knows to set the pinout assignment inside the programmer to that of a 27SF512 type chip.
OK, so in essence, I need to compile a list of ALL the different " Class " designations of the chips listed in my GQ-4X devices.txt file and compare an unlisted chip's pin-out configuration to the known pin-out configuration of the recognized " Class " chips to ascertain the correct " Class " designation.
Is there no " Master List " of all the different Class designations that the programmer recognizes or do I have to compile this data manually ?
Additionally, EXACTLY how does one ascertain the hierarchy of the eprom chips and / or other devices ?
In laymans's terms - How do I KNOW where to LOOK for the " Patriarch / Matriarch of the chip that I am attempting to identify / qualify ?
Yes, you could extract such a "Master List" and freely share your work with the community here.
You could also use the DIP switch setting to achieve the correct pinout.
As for the "hierarchy" you simply have to look in the base number datasheet. |
| anniel |
Posted - 04/03/2019 : 04:33:37
quote:
Originally posted by laptech
quote:
Originally posted by anniel
quote:
Originally posted by laptech
The 'Class'reference in the details.txt file relates to the pinout type of the chip and the chip's pin assignment/pin configuration, not the actual chip itself.
The SST 27FS512 is a 28 pin p-dip IC. The Winbond W27C512 is also a 28 pin p-dip IC. If you look at the data sheets of both chip's you will notice both are EEPROM's and that the pin assignment/pin configurations are also the same.
Now it is my understanding that the firmware chip inside the Gq-4X has a pinout definition list of all the common IC's. Many different manufacturer IC's use the same pinout configuration and therefore it is not practical to have every IC ever made to be in the firmware chip. So what the eprom programmer manufacturers do is find the IC's that are common to one another and use just one of them as the reference chip which is then used to define the pinout assignment of the programmer. Thus meaning, in this case, every chip that has the same pinout assignment/pin configuration of a SST 27FS512 is assigned that name in the 'Class' field so the programmer knows to set the pinout assignment inside the programmer to that of a 27FS512 type chip.
As for the issue of your ST M27c512 12F1A & ST M27C512 12F1 on my GQ-4X, when i enter in M27C512 in the device list, it returns back with Manufacturer being ST, chip type M27C512 and device ID being
2030D
I checked in my details.txt file and found this Name="M27C512",ID="203D",Class="27C512",Category="EPROM",MFG="ST"; so i am therefore curious how come your programmer is saying it is a M29F010B
Provided you have confirmed the programmer is working OK with new identical chips, the only way for the chip to ID wrong is if the chip is faulty and thus giving out the wrong ID.
There is more than just pinout info in a "class" otherwise how would you explain distinct 27C512 and 27SF512 classes?
His chips are clearly faulty but determining why is an interesting question.
Both those classes are different. Look at the devices.txt file and you will see the 'Category' variable. You will notice that on chips that use either of those above 'Classes', the 'Category' is either FLASH (UV erasable 27C512) or EPROM (Electrical Erasable 27SF512). the chips device ID will determine which Class and Category is used.
Yes, you are correct. |
| lance4glas |
Posted - 04/02/2019 : 03:26:17
quote:
Originally posted by laptech
As users of the device, we do not need to know the specifics of the 'Class' designation in the devices.txt file.
Therefore, why is knowing what the 'Class'designation is so important to you?
If you need a new chip added to the devices.txt file, just leave a request in the forum.
Simply because I am one who does not desire to rely on the knowledge of others , especially those who elect to keep their knowledge close to their vest.
WHAT EXACTLY is THE PROBLEM about trying to ascertain the CLASS of ANY chip ????????????????????????
Is THIS info "CLASSIFIED " - does one need to exhibit Security Clearance data to access the " CLASS " file data ???????????????
When I served in the US armed forces - US Army - MY security clearance was designated as " Top Secret "
BTW - "Thank You " for your intelligent response and informative input regards how the " Class " data is ascertained.
|
| laptech |
Posted - 04/02/2019 : 00:56:37
As users of the device, we do not need to know the specifics of the 'Class' designation in the devices.txt file.
Therefore, why is knowing what the 'Class'designation is so important to you?
If you need a new chip added to the devices.txt file, just leave a request in the forum. |
| lance4glas |
Posted - 04/01/2019 : 11:43:17
quote:
Originally posted by laptech
The 'Class'reference in the devices.txt file relates to the pinout type of the chip and the chip's pin assignment/pin configuration, not the actual chip itself.
The SST 27SF512 is a 28 pin p-dip IC. The Winbond W27C512 is also a 28 pin p-dip IC. If you look at the data sheets of both chip's you will notice both are EEPROM's and that the pin assignment/pin configurations are also the same.
Now it is my understanding that the firmware chip inside the Gq-4X has a pinout definition list of all the common IC's. Many different manufacturer IC's use the same pinout configuration and therefore it is not practical to have every IC ever made to be in the firmware chip. So what the eprom programmer manufacturers do is find the IC's that are common to one another and use just one of them as the reference chip which is then used to define the pinout assignment of the programmer. Thus meaning, in this case, every chip that has the same pinout assignment/pin configuration of a SST 27SF512 is assigned that name in the 'Class' field so the programmer knows to set the pinout assignment inside the programmer to that of a 27SF512 type chip.
OK, so in essence, I need to compile a list of ALL the different " Class " designations of the chips listed in my GQ-4X devices.txt file and compare an unlisted chip's pin-out configuration to the known pin-out configuration of the recognized " Class " chips to ascertain the correct " Class " designation.
Is there no " Master List " of all the different Class designations that the programmer recognizes or do I have to compile this data manually ?
Additionally, EXACTLY how does one ascertain the hierarchy of the eprom chips and / or other devices ?
In laymans's terms - How do I KNOW where to LOOK for the " Patriarch / Matriarch of the chip that I am attempting to identify / qualify ? |
| laptech |
Posted - 04/01/2019 : 05:47:46
quote:
Originally posted by anniel
quote:
Originally posted by laptech
The 'Class'reference in the details.txt file relates to the pinout type of the chip and the chip's pin assignment/pin configuration, not the actual chip itself.
The SST 27FS512 is a 28 pin p-dip IC. The Winbond W27C512 is also a 28 pin p-dip IC. If you look at the data sheets of both chip's you will notice both are EEPROM's and that the pin assignment/pin configurations are also the same.
Now it is my understanding that the firmware chip inside the Gq-4X has a pinout definition list of all the common IC's. Many different manufacturer IC's use the same pinout configuration and therefore it is not practical to have every IC ever made to be in the firmware chip. So what the eprom programmer manufacturers do is find the IC's that are common to one another and use just one of them as the reference chip which is then used to define the pinout assignment of the programmer. Thus meaning, in this case, every chip that has the same pinout assignment/pin configuration of a SST 27FS512 is assigned that name in the 'Class' field so the programmer knows to set the pinout assignment inside the programmer to that of a 27FS512 type chip.
As for the issue of your ST M27c512 12F1A & ST M27C512 12F1 on my GQ-4X, when i enter in M27C512 in the device list, it returns back with Manufacturer being ST, chip type M27C512 and device ID being
2030D
I checked in my details.txt file and found this Name="M27C512",ID="203D",Class="27C512",Category="EPROM",MFG="ST"; so i am therefore curious how come your programmer is saying it is a M29F010B
Provided you have confirmed the programmer is working OK with new identical chips, the only way for the chip to ID wrong is if the chip is faulty and thus giving out the wrong ID.
There is more than just pinout info in a "class" otherwise how would you explain distinct 27C512 and 27SF512 classes?
His chips are clearly faulty but determining why is an interesting question.
Both those classes are different. Look at the devices.txt file and you will see the 'Category' variable. You will notice that on chips that use either of those above 'Classes', the 'Category' is either FLASH (UV erasable 27C512) or EPROM (Electrical Erasable 27SF512). the chips device ID will determine which Class and Category is used. |
| anniel |
Posted - 04/01/2019 : 05:22:46
quote:
Originally posted by laptech
The 'Class'reference in the details.txt file relates to the pinout type of the chip and the chip's pin assignment/pin configuration, not the actual chip itself.
The SST 27FS512 is a 28 pin p-dip IC. The Winbond W27C512 is also a 28 pin p-dip IC. If you look at the data sheets of both chip's you will notice both are EEPROM's and that the pin assignment/pin configurations are also the same.
Now it is my understanding that the firmware chip inside the Gq-4X has a pinout definition list of all the common IC's. Many different manufacturer IC's use the same pinout configuration and therefore it is not practical to have every IC ever made to be in the firmware chip. So what the eprom programmer manufacturers do is find the IC's that are common to one another and use just one of them as the reference chip which is then used to define the pinout assignment of the programmer. Thus meaning, in this case, every chip that has the same pinout assignment/pin configuration of a SST 27FS512 is assigned that name in the 'Class' field so the programmer knows to set the pinout assignment inside the programmer to that of a 27FS512 type chip.
As for the issue of your ST M27c512 12F1A & ST M27C512 12F1 on my GQ-4X, when i enter in M27C512 in the device list, it returns back with Manufacturer being ST, chip type M27C512 and device ID being
2030D
I checked in my details.txt file and found this Name="M27C512",ID="203D",Class="27C512",Category="EPROM",MFG="ST"; so i am therefore curious how come your programmer is saying it is a M29F010B
Provided you have confirmed the programmer is working OK with new identical chips, the only way for the chip to ID wrong is if the chip is faulty and thus giving out the wrong ID.
There is more than just pinout info in a "class" otherwise how would you explain distinct 27C512 and 27FS512 classes?
His chips are clearly faulty but determining why is an interesting question. |
| anniel |
Posted - 04/01/2019 : 05:22:21
quote:
Originally posted by lance4glas
quote:
Originally posted by anniel
How much UV time did they get? The chips that is.
I would venture that they were exposed for the max setting on the Eprom Eraser to ensure complete erasure, which would be 60 minutes.
So, I would assume that in my overzealous effort to ensure that these eproms were totally erased - I inadvertently " toasted / fried " them ?
If the over-exposure to the UV is the cause for the discrepancy in the ID of these chips -
Then that is the price one must pay for their novice abilities and learn from your , actually MY, mistakes !
Part of the " Learning Curve " process !
However, allow me to add - I have performed the exact " over-exposure " procedure on numerous ST M27C512 chips and encountered NO problems, where the chip was erased, and re-written to and performed exactly as expected !
The extra ionizing may have hasten them to reach their EOL.
I have many "new" from China and some old pulls that present a wrong ID, even some that report no ID. |
| laptech |
Posted - 04/01/2019 : 04:03:12
The 'Class'reference in the devices.txt file relates to the pinout type of the chip and the chip's pin assignment/pin configuration, not the actual chip itself.
The SST 27SF512 is a 28 pin p-dip IC. The Winbond W27C512 is also a 28 pin p-dip IC. If you look at the data sheets of both chip's you will notice both are EEPROM's and that the pin assignment/pin configurations are also the same.
Now it is my understanding that the firmware chip inside the Gq-4X has a pinout definition list of all the common IC's. Many different manufacturer IC's use the same pinout configuration and therefore it is not practical to have every IC ever made to be in the firmware chip. So what the eprom programmer manufacturers do is find the IC's that are common to one another and use just one of them as the reference chip which is then used to define the pinout assignment of the programmer. Thus meaning, in this case, every chip that has the same pinout assignment/pin configuration of a SST 27SF512 is assigned that name in the 'Class' field so the programmer knows to set the pinout assignment inside the programmer to that of a 27SF512 type chip.
As for the issue of your ST M27c512 12F1A & ST M27C512 12F1 on my GQ-4X, when i enter in M27C512 in the device list, it returns back with Manufacturer being ST, chip type M27C512 and device ID being
2030D
I checked in my devices.txt file and found this Name="M27C512",ID="203D",Class="27C512",Category="EPROM",MFG="ST"; so i am therefore curious how come your programmer is saying it is a M29F010B
Provided you have confirmed the programmer is working OK with new identical chips, the only way for the chip to ID wrong is if the chip is faulty and thus giving out the wrong ID.
EDITED due to errors with text file name and ST chip ID
|
| lance4glas |
Posted - 03/31/2019 : 12:19:20
quote:
Originally posted by anniel
How much UV time did they get? The chips that is.
I would venture that they were exposed for the max setting on the Eprom Eraser to ensure complete erasure, which would be 60 minutes.
So, I would assume that in my overzealous effort to ensure that these eproms were totally erased - I inadvertently " toasted / fried " them ?
If the over-exposure to the UV is the cause for the discrepancy in the ID of these chips -
Then that is the price one must pay for their novice abilities and learn from your , actually MY, mistakes !
Part of the " Learning Curve " process !
However, allow me to add - I have performed the exact " over-exposure " procedure on numerous ST M27C512 chips and encountered NO problems, where the chip was erased, and re-written to and performed exactly as expected !
|
| anniel |
Posted - 03/31/2019 : 04:28:58
quote:
Originally posted by lance4glas
quote:
Originally posted by anniel
Were those chips in a functional device?
Yes, most definitely. Everything worked just fine. The eprom chip is / was installed into a dollar bill validator which needed to be updated to accept the new $5 bills.
My assumption would be that for some reason these two chips are defective AFTER the fact for some reason.
They worked initially, then after removal and erasing under UV, they take on a character all on their own.
Somewhat like members of my family, to include but not limited to :
the dog, the female children and finally the " better half " of the equation -
Perhaps too much " Beach Time " at the Jersey Shore ?
The above was solely in jest !
Perhaps, somehow , the chips became " contaminated " / corrupted or whatever ?
How much UV time did they get? The chips that is. |
| lance4glas |
Posted - 03/30/2019 : 18:53:05
quote:
Originally posted by anniel
Were those chips in a functional device?
Yes, most definitely. Everything worked just fine. The eprom chip is / was installed into a dollar bill validator which needed to be updated to accept the new $5 bills.
My assumption would be that for some reason these two chips are defective AFTER the fact for some reason.
They worked initially, then after removal and erasing under UV, they take on a character all on their own.
Somewhat like members of my family, to include but not limited to :
the dog, the female children and finally the " better half " of the equation -
Perhaps too much " Beach Time " at the Jersey Shore ?
The above was solely in jest !
Perhaps, somehow , the chips became " contaminated " / corrupted or whatever ?
|
| anniel |
Posted - 03/30/2019 : 18:40:22
quote:
Originally posted by lance4glas
quote:
Originally posted by anniel
When you say recognition problems what is the ID you get back?
The most significant eprom recognition problem that I am encountering is thus :
I have one (1) ST M27c512 12F1A eprom and one (1) ST M27C512 12F1 eprom, which are clearly 28 pin / lead UV erasable eproms.
When loaded into my GQ-4X Programmer and selecting M27C512 as the Device, and performing an ID check, BOTH chips return the ID 2020 and Device M29F010B.
As you are more aware than I, the M29F010B is a 32 pin / lead eeprom which these two chips clearly are not.
Other issues that I have relate to other chips, which I think if I tweak / modify the devices.txt files I can fine tune the write / failure to write issues that I am presently encountering.
However, the M27C512 recognition issue, which ONLY happened on these two chips out of more than a dozen that I was able to successfully update, is the biggest obstacle at the moment.
Doing a Blank Check on the eproms with Device M27C512 - Blank Check return Blank which is correct.
Trying to read chip with Device M29F010B returns Unknown - Not in Dictionary.
Trying to Write to these chips causes Write Errors - however, I have as of yet to Tweak / Modify the devices.txt file for this device.
THAT is my #1 Recognition Issue, at the moment !
Where those chips in a functional device? |
| lance4glas |
Posted - 03/30/2019 : 16:38:57
quote:
Originally posted by anniel
When you say recognition problems what is the ID you get back?
The most significant eprom recognition problem that I am encountering is thus :
I have one (1) ST M27c512 12F1A eprom and one (1) ST M27C512 12F1 eprom, which are clearly 28 pin / lead UV erasable eproms.
When loaded into my GQ-4X Programmer and selecting M27C512 as the Device, and performing an ID check, BOTH chips return the ID 2020 and Device M29F010B.
As you are more aware than I, the M29F010B is a 32 pin / lead eeprom which these two chips clearly are not.
Other issues that I have relate to other chips, which I think if I tweak / modify the devices.txt files I can fine tune the write / failure to write issues that I am presently encountering.
However, the M27C512 recognition issue, which ONLY happened on these two chips out of more than a dozen that I was able to successfully update, is the biggest obstacle at the moment.
Doing a Blank Check on the eproms with Device M27C512 - Blank Check return Blank which is correct.
Trying to read chip with Device M29F010B returns Unknown - Not in Dictionary.
Trying to Write to these chips causes Write Errors - however, I have as of yet to Tweak / Modify the devices.txt file for this device.
THAT is my #1 Recognition Issue, at the moment !
|
| anniel |
Posted - 03/30/2019 : 04:44:44
When you say recognition problems what is the ID you get back? |
| lance4glas |
Posted - 03/29/2019 : 17:37:21
Thank You for the insight as to how the " Class" was ascertained -
There is Nothing that can be compared to Experience !
|
| anniel |
Posted - 03/29/2019 : 05:06:44
quote:
Originally posted by lance4glas
quote:
I agree that looking for old datasheets may not be easy for a novice.
Moreover, it is quite understandable that SST may not want to keep active these outdated devices on their website.
Learning basic Googling skills could be helpful to you in this case.
Here is a copy from my personal archives for you to consult.
Download Attachment:
551406
anniel,
I do not have any difficulty in searching for, finding and downloading Spec Sheets on outdated / obsolete eprom chips as long as the info is available.
As an example see 1st attachment which is the Spec Sheet you tried to send me - but the download failed - see 2nd attachment.
Now, having said that - we are brought back full circle regards my initial question as to HOW and WHERE the " Class " designation was obtained for the chip in question !
There is NO reference in either Spec Sheet Data referencing their relationship.
Apparently I am only allowed to upload ONE image file per reply,
for the record I was able to access, view and download the Spec Sheet for the SST SF27010 chip and there is NO mention there either of "Class", inheritance, etc.
As such, I am still in the same fog as I was days ago when I made my initial post.
I appreciate your concerted efforts to try and educate me, however I am under the impression that what you know is garnered from years in the field and watching new technology being evolved from old - hence - Class, inheritance, etc.
Thanks again for you time and efforts.
They are greatly appreciated !
Download Attachment:
40114
P.S. - MY upload failed as well !
The same class is due to them being basically the same chip from two different manufacturers. Both are 27512 flash with the same architectures, JEDEC pinout, voltages etc.
Yes, something seems wrong with the upload/download mechanism. |
| lance4glas |
Posted - 03/28/2019 : 18:53:52
quote:
I agree that looking for old datasheets may not be easy for a novice.
Moreover, it is quite understandable that SST may not want to keep active these outdated devices on their website.
Learning basic Googling skills could be helpful to you in this case.
Here is a copy from my personal archives for you to consult.
Download Attachment:
551406
anniel,
I do not have any difficulty in searching for, finding and downloading Spec Sheets on outdated / obsolete eprom chips as long as the info is available.
As an example see 1st attachment which is the Spec Sheet you tried to send me - but the download failed - see 2nd attachment.
Now, having said that - we are brought back full circle regards my initial question as to HOW and WHERE the " Class " designation was obtained for the chip in question !
There is NO reference in either Spec Sheet Data referencing their relationship.
Apparently I am only allowed to upload ONE image file per reply,
for the record I was able to access, view and download the Spec Sheet for the SST SF27010 chip and there is NO mention there either of "Class", inheritance, etc.
As such, I am still in the same fog as I was days ago when I made my initial post.
I appreciate your concerted efforts to try and educate me, however I am under the impression that what you know is garnered from years in the field and watching new technology being evolved from old - hence - Class, inheritance, etc.
Thanks again for you time and efforts.
They are greatly appreciated !
Download Attachment:
40114
P.S. - MY upload failed as well !
|
| anniel |
Posted - 03/28/2019 : 03:46:02
quote:
Originally posted by lance4glas
Your terse reply to my post is totally lacking in being beneficial to my request.
I asked a valid question to seek a knowledgeable response so I could research information without having to rely on the experience and expertise of others.
Additionally, having researched SST's website after your response I was unable to glean ANY information to which you elude to.
Perhaps you would graciously take the opportunity to give me a direct link to where this Class information is located as I can not find it with the minimal information that you provided.
Thanks in advance.
I agree that looking for old datasheets may not be easy for a novice.
Moreover, it is quite understandable that SST may not want to keep active these outdated devices on their website.
Learning basic Googling skills could be helpful to you in this case.
Here is a copy from my personal archives for you to consult.
Download Attachment:
551406 |
| lance4glas |
Posted - 03/27/2019 : 17:11:52
Your terse reply to my post is totally lacking in being beneficial to my request.
I asked a valid question to seek a knowledgeable response so I could research information without having to rely on the experience and expertise of others.
Additionally, having researched SST's website after your response I was unable to glean ANY information to which you elude to.
Perhaps you would graciously take the opportunity to give me a direct link to where this Class information is located as I can not find it with the minimal information that you provided.
Thanks in advance.
|
| anniel |
Posted - 03/27/2019 : 03:13:21
quote:
Originally posted by lance4glas
Image Insert:
6245 bytes
Download Attachment:
108050
The accompanying attachment is the Data Sheet for the Winbond W27C512 eeprom.
There is NO reference to any other devices other than the W27C512 which comes in 3 different packaging options.
EXACTLY where was the "Class=27sf512" obtained from ?
Am I missing something somewhere ?
I am having recognition problems with this chip as well as others and need to modify the devices.txt files to properly recognize and write to these chips.
Thanks in advance.
Clearly obtained from the Silicon Storage Technology device of the same name. |
|
|
