16F87xA silicon bug (programming)
Jim Robertson email (remove spam text)
>OK, so that wasn't the one. It's morning again, and I'm not in the same
>office as my notes on this, but I definitely remember running into a problem
>like this a few years back. The bulk erase didn't work right, and after
>some trial and error I discovered that a different value had to be written
>somewhere than specified in the programming spec. At the time I mentioned
>it to someone at Microchip, and they reacted like "Yeah, we know about
>that". I therefore concluded the issue was "well known". This was only one
>of several errors or misleading information in the programming specs.
The 16C84 dataEE erase was wrong (missing begin programming command) and the
16F84 code protection bits "mask" value was wrong. They are two that come to
> > Are you getting this?
>Geesh, no need to get peeved. I was reporting what I believed to be the
>case. I wasn't trying to piss off you or anyone else.
Ok, I did get pissed off. A lot of work and experience went into this
investigation. Your reply made it look like it was
a wasted effort and everybody knew already. I spend at least 30 hours
(unpaid) and then gave away my
findings to all my competitors. Good reason to get peeved but I'm over it now.
1999 I first raised the issue. It has been raised over and over since.
Have a look at this thread from June 2002. Not quite to with pin-36 but the
same issue none the less.
See, you were there. Notice your "helpful" contribution? I did. ;-)
See also: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devprogs.htm?key=programming
You must be a member of the
piclist mailing list
(not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the