https://olimex.wordpress.com/2015/11/09 … ntrollers/
Basically, Olimex suggest that GigaDevices did not license the core from STM
I see they referenced my blog, but did not contact me or leave a message.
I guess the only way to know for sure if the GD32 is an officially sanctioned clone is via the STM website.
Legally.. I’m not sure how GD would be doing anything illegal by making a clone, if they were not copying the actual silicon core of the STM32.
They use similar part codes, but this is very common on less complicated chips.
e.g. If i buy a 741 opamp, I dont really check if its an LM741 or someone else’s
I dont think its the same as the cloned FTDI 232 chips, which get passed of as being made by FTDI but are actually a reverse engineered clone.
It seems a massive amount of work to clone the entire functionality of another MCU, and its hard to see how the economics of this work if they undercut the price of the STM32F1, unless STM are making a massive mark up on a $2 part
But who knows…. Stranger things have happened
Edit.
I took a look at GD’s site again, and they seem to have removed references to licensing the technology from STM.
They have also improved their web site a little
http://www.gigadevice.com/product-categ … cale=en_US
I’ve followed this thread, but I didn’t want to bother you about that.
I’ve even posting that we found this document awhile ago : http://www.eettaiwan.com/STATIC/PDF/201 … Device.pdf
Having so many devices in their pipelines, they probably have some kind of relationship with STM, otherwise, it would be quite enormous job to have all those chips been cloned.
Somebody also replied that GD has proper license, not from STM, but from ARM : https://community.arm.com/community/arm … iconductor.
I just read the rest of the Olimex thread, and saw that doc about GD licensing the ARM core.
I re-read the other doc as well, (Andy originally linked to it), and it shows ST as a strategic partner of GD in Flash memory I think, but its a bit vague.
I don’t know quite why Olimex are worried about this development. Isn’t competition supposed to be good in a capitalist society?
BTW. In the light of the new information, I”ve updated my blog, but just struck out the original comment about GD having a license, as this was in hindsight just speculation based on available doc’s at that time.
In such case, that means GD has done enormous amount of work in less than 3 years to achieve their portfolio of devices.
I agree with you about the communications between Olimex and ST.
Olimex didn’t state who they contacted
I wrote to contact in ST
Could be their sales rep, or perhaps just someone they know who works for ST (it was very vague)
I’m not going to post back to Olimex’s thread, but it doesn’t look like have actually tried a GD32 at all. You were the only person who pointed out the zero wait state stuff.
Its almost like they think that the GD32 is a complete clone of the STM32, but its not.
Apart from the zero wait state flash, it has 2 extra USB PLL divider settings, and there are a myriad of other small changes which GD have documented (we linked to various Russian web sites that listed the differences)
And I’m not sure that our SPI lib works with the GD32, as I tried wiring up a display and it didnt work. But I know the data is being clocked out. So either I have made a wiring mistake, but it could also be some sort of register difference with the bit order etc etc
I find it strange that Olimex think that people will be designing with STM32’s and then just trying to manufacture with GD32’s. I think this is unlikely.
GD released their own CMSIS etc, and I don’t think it would be sensible for anyone to attempt to use STM’s CMSIS or STCubeMX considering the differences to various registers.
BTW. I know the Russian STM32 clone was also mentioned, but to the best of my knowledge its even less STM32 compatible than the GD32. I recall someone contacted me via email about the Russian chip, and I did a small amount of research at the time.
Let me add a bit of salt grain.
Olimex did this original post which I think is fine, although there researches are maybe biased.
Where I’m hanging is all those replies which stated the GD product is crappy, and all Chinese products should be banned. (Is it related with the Paris events ?)
About Olimex itself, I don’t want to blame them (especially that I’m using their A20-Micro since 2 years, and having good relationship with them)
The whole question is the definition of “clones” !
Even with the FTDI saga, if those clones would be “silicon mask copies”, Yes !, those would be “clones”, and if not, then they are “FTDI compatible” and if label as so with different part numbers, not as FTDI part numbers, those would become legal products.
This comes back to GD : they are in ARM partners, they have design their own STM compatibles, CPU designed coming from ARM, peripherals designed by their engineers (with or without help from STM), but they don’t clams to be STM devices, those devices are than legal. I’m not an lawyer, but this is the way I view it.
Let say that if I’m doing reverse-engineering myself of some ugly digital fancy chip, I’m now understanding well, and then I’m implement the same thing into an FPGA ! My own design with a lot of work, should it be considered as a “clone” ?
Of course, there is also “patent” issue, if your “clones” is using a “way-to-do-things” that is already patented, maybe you can get into trouble, but again, I’m not a lawyer.
<…>
Of course, there is also “patent” issue, if your “clones” is using a “way-to-do-things” that is already patented, maybe you can get into trouble, but again, I’m not a lawyer.
I bought some power FETs which were labelled as the 20A version, but failed at about 5A, I suspect they were re-labelled 5A ones.. But its always “buyer beware” (caveat emptor)
I thought I had that problem with an FT232 the day, but somehow it seemed to fix its self again.
With the GD32, they are not labelling their devices as STM32 and they don’t even claim they are an exact replacement.
So I think this is a storm in a teacup, unless ST actually decides to take legal action against them in China for some sort of copyright or patent violation
But IMHO, the whole patent system is broken, with patents being granted without companies even producing a proof of concept, and also patenting the blindingly obvious ( so no one else can do the blindingly obvious)
I’m not surprised that China has their own view on patents, as I think in the longer term the way the patent system is being used, will inhibit technology development and not encourage it ( which was the original intention of the Patent concept)
In early years of 2000s, I remember that SCO/Novell dispute about Linux when they decide to fight just to get some money to avoid bankruptcy.
It ended up that they were the guilty on, because the sources in question been introduced by themselves in Linux kernel.
Also, I remember somewhen in 1990s, an individual (Gilbert Hyatt) was claiming that any microcontrollers in the world were infringing his intellectual properties, in which I had only drawn by hands on paper a bit more than 1 year before Intel introduced the first MCU in 1969, but never fill patent at that time, but trying later when he saw an opportunity there to get money from all the industry, Intel, Motorola, etc :
In conclusion, I know that some intellectual properties are important, but sometime, 2 persons can get the same idea without copying any thing each other. Should these intellectual properties been really patentable ?
If yes, I should have filled one in back in the 198x when I came with an idea of having a DAC scanned to Analog Demux charging 100 capacitors with 100 opamps to provide 100 of analog outputs board, all done thru dual port memory.
Now, Qualcomm is finally getting their due. For having an army of IP lawyers suing anything moves.
Two countries told them to stuff it where the sun don’t shine.
Look at their stock price of in the last month.
And our wonderful elected members do nothing about all the Patent Trolls.
F4 and F7 is on promoting.
Well, if GD can come out F4 and F7 will be a big effect to STM. Overall price is just 10-30% cheaper than STM32.
In mass production i am sure to put STM part in my design. Still worry about risk of GD not working in real field.
F4 and F7 is on promoting.
Well, if GD can come out F4 and F7 will be a big effect to STM. Overall price is just 10-30% cheaper than STM32.
In mass production i am sure to put STM part in my design. Still worry about risk of GD not working in real field.
At least, after slagging GD off, they posted the letter to their blog.
Its a shame that Olimex didnt have a go at changing the PLL and running the GD32 on their board at 96Mhz, as it should work OK even for USB is they change both PLLs
I am tempted to comment to their blog.
I find a lot of Chinese website are very poor quality, but perhaps it doesnt make any difference to them, as in the case of GD they are selling to existing large scale manufacturers, who just want a cheaper way to produce and existing product.
I presume they simply took a partially assembled board in the inventory, and replace the MCU.
Olimex didn’t spend much time on the clock simply because they didn’t investigate the whole thing like you did.
Yes, I would recommend you to post little comment …
I presume they simply took a partially assembled board in the inventory, and replace the MCU.
Olimex didn’t spend much time on the clock simply because they didn’t investigate the whole thing like you did.
Yes, I would recommend you to post little comment …
price seems 2RMB lower than STM32. IF STM32F10x stop production. Well, we can sure that we have GD32 from China.
But i think in Big qty. GD32 will be very low price.
Thanks for the link.
