misc: Support for STM32F401CD Blackpill as debug probe #2192

lasutek commented 2026年02月09日 16:30:38 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Detailed description

Add support for Blackpill board with STM32401CD as debug probe.

Text on MCU (topside of Blackpill board):
STM32F
401CDU6
GQ21H 16i VQ
CHN GQ 739
"Pin 1 mark" "ST logo" "e3" "Z"

Text on backside of Blackpill board:
WeAct
V3.0

Difference between stm32f401cd, and for example the already supported stm32f401ce, is the amount of available Flash. So technically, only the definition of memory region for rom (flash) in the linker script will differ between these MCU's.

Flash / RAM	MCU
512 K / 96 K	STM32401CE
384 K / 96 K	STM32401CD
256 K / 64 K	STM32401CC
128 K / 64 K	STM32401CB

Your checklist for this pull request

• I've read the Code of Conduct
• I've read the guidelines for contributing to this repository
• It builds for hardware native (see Building the firmware)
• It builds as BMDA (see Building the BMDA)
• I've tested it to the best of my ability
• My commit messages provide a useful short description of what the commits do

Closing issues

<!-- Filling this template is mandatory --> ## Detailed description Add support for Blackpill board with STM32401CD as debug probe. Text on MCU (topside of Blackpill board): STM32F 401CDU6 GQ21H 16i VQ CHN GQ 739 "Pin 1 mark" "ST logo" "e3" "Z" Text on backside of Blackpill board: WeAct V3.0 Difference between stm32f401cd, and for example the already supported stm32f401ce, is the amount of available Flash. So technically, only the definition of memory region for rom (flash) in the linker script will differ between these MCU's. | Flash / RAM | MCU | | -------------- | ---------- | | 512 K / 96 K | STM32401CE | | 384 K / 96 K | STM32401CD | | 256 K / 64 K | STM32401CC | | 128 K / 64 K | STM32401CB | <!-- Explain the **details** for making this change. * Is a new feature implemented? * What existing problem(s) does the pull request solve? * How does the pull request solve these problems? Please provide enough information so that others can review your pull request. Information embedded in the description part of the commits doesn't count. --> ## Your checklist for this pull request * [x] I've read the [Code of Conduct](https://github.com/blackmagic-debug/blackmagic/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) * [x] I've read the [guidelines for contributing](https://github.com/blackmagic-debug/blackmagic/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) to this repository * [x] It builds for hardware native (see [Building the firmware](https://github.com/blackmagic-debug/blackmagic?tab=readme-ov-file#building-black-magic-debug-firmware)) * [x] It builds as BMDA (see [Building the BMDA](https://github.com/blackmagic-debug/blackmagic?tab=readme-ov-file#building-black-magic-debug-app)) * [x] I've tested it to the best of my ability * [x] My commit messages provide a useful short description of what the commits do ## Closing issues <!-- put "fixes #XXXX" here to auto-close the issue(s) that your PR fixes (if any). -->

dragonmux commented 2026年04月19日 17:41:43 +02:00

(Ping to @lasutek so you see the comment. Please use your GH fork of the repo to do the update and we'll use the fetch head of the PR there to update the shadow branch here. PRs, even on archived repos, can still accept changes hence why this works.)

(Ping to @lasutek so you see the comment. Please use your GH fork of the repo to do the update and we'll use the fetch head of the PR there to update the shadow branch here. PRs, even on archived repos, can still accept changes hence why this works.)

lasutek commented 2026年04月20日 11:02:02 +02:00

I am quite sure that I do not fully understand what to do...
Is it enough if I on GitHub site update my fork using web UI using "Sync fork -> Update branch"?

I am quite sure that I do not fully understand what to do... Is it enough if I on GitHub site update my fork using web UI using "Sync fork -> Update branch"?

dragonmux commented 2026年04月20日 11:08:41 +02:00

No, unfortunately because of how archiving works we can't push new commits to that repo any more - so you'll have to use your working copy.. this makes a couple of presumptions about remote names, but hopefully makes sense enough - using your existing working copy from GitHub:

# Sort out the remotes you have defined, this presumes you have just `origin` pointing at your fork
git remote add upstream https://codeberg.org/blackmagic-debug/blackmagic
git remote set-url origin https://codeberg.org/lasutek/blackmagic
git remote add GitHub git@github.com:lasutek/blackmagic
# Fetch all new commit data and prune now gone branches
git fetch --all --prune
# Rebase your current branch (presumed to be your `main` with your PR changes on) onto current here `main`
git rebase -i upstream/main
# (Force) push the updated branch to GitHub so the fetch head for the PR updates
git push -f GitHub main

Hopefully this makes sense

No, unfortunately because of how archiving works we can't push new commits to that repo any more - so you'll have to use your working copy.. this makes a couple of presumptions about remote names, but hopefully makes sense enough - using your existing working copy from GitHub: ```sh # Sort out the remotes you have defined, this presumes you have just `origin` pointing at your fork git remote add upstream https://codeberg.org/blackmagic-debug/blackmagic git remote set-url origin https://codeberg.org/lasutek/blackmagic git remote add GitHub git@github.com:lasutek/blackmagic # Fetch all new commit data and prune now gone branches git fetch --all --prune # Rebase your current branch (presumed to be your `main` with your PR changes on) onto current here `main` git rebase -i upstream/main # (Force) push the updated branch to GitHub so the fetch head for the PR updates git push -f GitHub main ``` Hopefully this makes sense

lasutek commented 2026年04月20日 12:31:09 +02:00

Thank you very much for excellent instructions!
I can now see that my fork on GitHub have been updated (hopefully in the correct way).

Thank you very much for excellent instructions! I can now see that my fork on GitHub have been updated (hopefully in the correct way).

Reason:

dragonmux commented 2026年04月20日 12:47:07 +02:00

Yup, all looks good! We'll get this merged as soon as CI completes.

Yup, all looks good! We'll get this merged as soon as CI completes.