Olimexino-STM32

Maple Mini, Maple Rev3, Maple Rev 5 and Maple Ret 6, iTead Maple etc
katesfb
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:21 am

Re: Olimexino-STM32

Post by katesfb » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:46 am

Hi,
What is the correct board option to use with the olimexino-STM32. In Arduino under the boards manager with subsection STM32 boards (stm32duino.com) there are a few options that seem relevant to the olimexino. I have been using Maple (rev3), is this correct as not all examples seem to work.

Any help is much appreciated.

Cheers.

User avatar
RogerClark
Posts: 7443
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:36 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Olimexino-STM32

Post by RogerClark » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:14 am

What MCU is on the board ? F103RC ??

Does it have come with the bootloader installed ?

katesfb
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:21 am

Re: Olimexino-STM32

Post by katesfb » Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:29 pm

Hi,
And thanks for the reply.

The MCU is stm32F103RBT6.

It looks like it comes with the maple boot-loader installed as is mentioned here https://www.olimex.com/Products/Duino/S ... e-hardware

Any help is much appreciated.

Cheers.

User avatar
RogerClark
Posts: 7443
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:36 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Olimexino-STM32

Post by RogerClark » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:18 am

Not all examples work with all boards

The F103RB is just a larger F103C with a few more pins, it doesnt have things like DAC that the F103RE or VE or ZE has etc

Also, unless someone reports a compile issue with an example I have no way of knowing that it doesnt work, as its impractical for me to test every example for every change to the master repo

User avatar
Manny
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:15 pm

Re: Olimexino-STM32

Post by Manny » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:26 am

I use Maple (rev3) with the the stm32duino bootloader option which is much better than the one the board comes with.

Phono
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 6:08 am
Location: Ermont, France

Re: Olimexino-STM32

Post by Phono » Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:12 pm

Hi all,
I have used Olimexino-STM32 boards for several years in various projects, incluing my biggest one, where 5 of these boards control the steering and monitor the system health of my hybrid-propulsion leisure boat. They work in conjunction with homemade interface shields as well as SEEED ethernet shields, and all the boards are connected to a single CAN bus.
I am totally satisfied with them. No crash ever, although they run in a very noisy environment (2 x 10 kW electric motors) and sometimes at rather high temperatures.
I would certainly recommend them for an industrial application. Their ability to be supplied with a 24V battery and their ready to use CAN bus connection are very convenient.
The only advice I would like to give is this one :
all boards since the beginning until revision E included have the "5V" pin (as defined for genuine Arduinos) actually powered with the internal 3.3V. This poses a compatibility problem with some shields that expect 5V on this pin.
Since revision F they fixed this and you can now find both 3.3V and 5V on the power connector, as expected.
Please pay attention to this, as when you order these boards you do not know which version is actually delivered.
It is, however, easy to change a version E to version F by just cutting 2 traces and adding 2 straps on the PCB, which I recommend.
Jean-Marc

ag123
Posts: 798
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Olimexino-STM32

Post by ag123 » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:23 pm

OLIMEXINO-STM32 is still listed as not supported on the wiki, is it still true?
http://wiki.stm32duino.com/index.php?ti ... _64_pin.29

Phono
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 6:08 am
Location: Ermont, France

Re: Olimexino-STM32

Post by Phono » Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:26 pm

I must admit I did not know this wiki, and I do not know what "supported" means. I use the Aduino IDE V1.8.3 and the STM32 package from this site.
I select the board "Maple (Rev 3)" and it works. The only unsupported feature was the built-in CAN interface, but it is in the process of integration for a pending version. Maybe, the "unsupported" feature should be corrected, unless this means something else.

Post Reply