Searching \ for '[OT] 68hc11?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=68hc11
Search entire site for: '68hc11?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] 68hc11?'
2005\09\21@005216 by Denny Esterline

picon face
Yeah, I know. Booo... Hissss...... I feel like a traitor even mentioning
them on this list, but...

It's looking like I might have a future project that uses the 68hc11f1,
since I haven't any prior experience with those, I thought I might solicit
advice from those of you that have.

And before you ask, yes I'd love to just redesign with a PIC, but it's not
an option.

So, what's the best way to get my arms around this thing? Any special
gotchas to look out for? Recommended software tools? (assembler, simulator,
etc)


Lastly, it's complicated, but I don't expect to get the hardware for 6-8
weeks, so I'd like to get my hands on a devboard or even just a couple of
chips so I can work through the basics. Does anybody have any hardware
collecting dust they'd be willing to part with?

Thanks,
-Denny

2005\09\21@021055 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Sep 20, 2005, at 9:52 PM, Denny Esterline wrote:
> It's looking like I might have a future project that uses the 68hc11f1,
> since I haven't any prior experience with those, I thought I might
> solicit
> advice from those of you that have.

> So, what's the best way to get my arms around this thing? Any special
> gotchas to look out for? Recommended software tools?

The 6811 is generally well respected, but it's more of a microprocessor
with onboard rom, eeprom, and eprom than a PIC-like microcontroller.
(the main thing being a traditional vonNeuman architecture, with
programs
being runnable from any type of memory.)

MIT apparently designed several 68HC11 based boards for use as the core
of some robotics classes.  The "mini-board" and "handy-board" are
standardized designs that you should be able to find bare boards and
perhaps assembled versions of at assorted dealers, along with lots
of software support.   Apparently it was very handy to have the rom
full of debugger/operating system, and download small programs to
ram or eeprom to run.  There's usually some 6811 stuff on eBay...

Freescale still has (dos) assemblers and such available, although the
6811s are listed as "legacy" parts.  (are you sure you want to use a
"legacy" part?!)

http://www.ezl.com/~rsch/  Seems to have a good set of links, though
I didn't check how many were dead.

BillW

2005\09\21@035628 by Jose Da Silva

flavicon
face
On September 20, 2005 09:52 pm, Denny Esterline wrote:
> It's looking like I might have a future project that uses the
> 68hc11f1, since I haven't any prior experience with those, I thought
> I might solicit advice from those of you that have.
>
> And before you ask, yes I'd love to just redesign with a PIC, but
> it's not an option.

Sort of leaves me puzzled why, but if it's a customer thing, understood.

> So, what's the best way to get my arms around this thing? Any special
> gotchas to look out for?

The PIC WDT runs independent from the PIC clock, so if something fails
on the PIC, the WDT resets anyways. The 6811 has to have the clock
running for the WDT to work correctly. If you really need a Watch Dog,
I would recommend a separate piece of hardware that the 6811
trips/resets to say it is "OK".

You could probably use one of those new 6-pin PICs to act as an external
WDT for the 6811 ;-)
... otherwise you will have to build some external WDT hardware that
needs to be reset intermittently by the 6811 otherwise it will reset
the 6811.

Unlike PICs which have a security bit, if you are looking for secure
parts, make sure they are stamped with the S marking.  I ended up
paying secure prices for non-secure parts because the distributor
thought they were the same parts. They are not!

The Motorolas seem"ed" more reliable than the Japanese 3rd-party copies
from what I understood, something about the flash memory being
corrupted over the long-term a little more often despite proper
programming (this is hearsay from someone who used to do a lot of
them)... but that was over 10 years ago, so I don't know how that is
now... things have most-likely/probably improved since then.

> Recommended software tools? (assembler,
> simulator, etc)

The motorola 6811 free assemblers should do adequately if you are a
careful programmer and separately test steps in modules, otherwise
you'll need to look at fancier tools if you are prone to errors or are
looking at something highly complicated. It's been a while, so can't
think of anything to suggest.

2005\09\21@063002 by Tom Sefranek

face picon face
I have several development boards for the 68HC11, where are you?

Denny Esterline wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
 *
 |  __O    Thomas C. Sefranek   spam_OUTWA1RHPTakeThisOuTspamARRL.net
 |_-\<,_   Amateur Radio Operator: WA1RHP  
 (*)/ (*)  Bicycle mobile on 145.41, 448.625 MHz

hamradio.cmcorp.com/inventory/Inventory.html
http://www.harvardrepeater.org


2005\09\21@085620 by Denny Esterline

picon face
> > And before you ask, yes I'd love to just redesign with a PIC, but
> > it's not an option.
>
> Sort of leaves me puzzled why, but if it's a customer thing, understood.

> Freescale still has (dos) assemblers and such available, although the
> 6811s are listed as "legacy" parts.  (are you sure you want to use a
> "legacy" part?!)

I can't say too much, to protect the guilty and all that. It's not a new
design. It's a ~10 year old project and the original developer had some
employee turnover, now they only seem to have some green as a stick kid
working on it. They can't seem to add a new feature without breaking two
other ones. But the worst part, the part they should be killed for, they
were running out of code space - so they DELETED THE COMMENTS!!!

Long story short, it looks like I could be in a position to pick up the
project once management gets off their collective arses and terminates the
contract.

Thanks,
-Denny

2005\09\21@090219 by Denny Esterline

picon face
> I have several development boards for the 68HC11, where are you?
>

I'm in Mayville Michigan 48744

email me off list (desterline @ tds,net) and we'll work out a price and
shipping.

Thanks,
-Denny

2005\09\21@091401 by olin piclist

face picon face
Denny Esterline wrote:
> But the worst part, the part they should be killed for, they
> were running out of code space - so they DELETED THE COMMENTS!!!

ROFL!  I've heard some pretty creative excuses for lack of comments, but
that's a new one on me.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\09\21@091504 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>But the worst part, the part they should be killed
>for, they were running out of code space - so they
>DELETED THE COMMENTS!!!

I presume you mean disk space on the development system.

They did not happen to keep any printouts of previous versions?

2005\09\21@094551 by Denny Esterline

picon face
> >But the worst part, the part they should be killed
> >for, they were running out of code space - so they
> >DELETED THE COMMENTS!!!
>
> I presume you mean disk space on the development system.

That would at least be logicaly defendable, but no. Short on codespace on
the eeprom, delete the comments in the source code. I wish I was kidding.

> They did not happen to keep any printouts of previous versions?

I don't actualy have the job yet. The customer's managment hasn't figured
out how screwed they are yet, they're just merrily going along with the same
_company_ they used for the last ~10 years. They haven't realized all the
competent developers jumped ship and thier project is on an express ride to
hell. As to the original code, we *think* there is a copy archived on the
customer's network. But would you expect somebody that deletes comments in
source code to save space to know how to use a version control system?

-Denny

2005\09\21@104900 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
The 68HC11 is not recommended for new designs see http://www.freescale.com.
A 68HC08, 68HCS08 or 68HC12 would be a much better choice if you really need
to re-use old HC11 assembly code.

If you are really stuck using it then I recommend you join the 68HC11
mailing list, it used to be run by Motorola but is now a Yahoo group. Also,
I would make it clear to the management that they are likely to receive a
final lifetime buy notice for the 68HC11 as soon as Freescale's existing
inventories run out. If they still insist on the 68HC11 then, you'll get to
redesign the system for a different processor in probably a year or two.

The 68HC11 has a very poor price vs. perfomance compared to any of the newer
processors designed in the last decade. For single chip applications I've
moved all our products to PIC's and for large memory applications, 32K+,
I've moved our products to the Z8Encore! parts.

Paul

>{Original Message removed}

2005\09\21@105721 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> I presume you mean disk space on the development system.
>
>That would at least be logicaly defendable, but no.
>Short on codespace on the eeprom, delete the comments
>in the source code. I wish I was kidding.

ROTFLMAO I can hear the cash till ringing from here in the UK ...

>But would you expect somebody that deletes comments
>in source code to save space to know how to use a
>version control system?

No, but at least you would have something that guided you as to intended use
of some of the code was what I was thinking, even if it was only a printout.
Maybe you could then get the schoolboy they currently have to put in
comments on the existing code from that.

2005\09\21@110751 by Douglas Wood

picon face
I used to work with a guy who, upon receiving any source code, would strip
all comments. His reasoning? The code should tell him everything he needs to
know about the program.

Douglas Wood

{Original Message removed}

2005\09\21@111251 by Dave Tweed

face
flavicon
face
olin_piclist@embedinc.com (Olin Lathrop) wrote:
> Denny Esterline wrote:
> > But the worst part, the part they should be killed for, they
> > were running out of code space - so they DELETED THE COMMENTS!!!
>
> ROFL!  I've heard some pretty creative excuses for lack of comments, but
> that's a new one on me.

That used to be a trick used with very early tape-based microcomputer
BASIC interpreters, which kept the entire program -- tokenized source
along with comments -- in main memory. Deleting comments could free up
significant amounts of space for additional code tokens.

AFAIK, this technique never applied to any other language, and it faded
away once disk-based systems became common.

-- Dave Tweed

2005\09\21@114304 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Sep 21, 2005, at 8:12 AM, Dave Tweed wrote:

>> > But the worst part, the part they should be killed for, they
>> > were running out of code space - so they DELETED THE COMMENTS!!!
>

> That used to be a trick used with very early tape-based microcomputer
> BASIC interpreters, which kept the entire program -- tokenized source
> along with comments -- in main memory. Deleting comments could free up
> significant amounts of space for additional code tokens.

Tokenized, hell.  Early basic interpreters didn't tokenize; you could
save space by using short forms of keywords, or omitting the "let" in
assignment statements (if that was allowed.)  It's presumably still an
issue on BASIC51 micros.  Note that omitting comments made your program
go FASTER, too!

> AFAIK, this technique never applied to any other language

It's a potential problem with any pure interpreter.  Forth comes to
mind, though its disk access was so primitive that space not used
by comments was wasted anyway.  Postscript would be a modern example.
A postscript program with no comments downloads to the printer faster,
too.


>  and it faded away once disk-based systems became common.
>
Yes.  Yeah!

BillW

2005\09\21@114524 by Mark Scoville

flavicon
face
Stop. Please stop. My sides hurt from laughing. That is incredibly funny -
and oh so sad - all at the same time. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

We have a project here that runs on a single board PC. The guy responsible
for the code "lost" it all about five years ago. No source, no printouts,
all we have is the object code on a floppy. Fast forward to about a year
ago - Can't get the screwy Sipex A/D chip that we use in that product. I
still remember sitting in my bosses office saying "No problem, we just
change to an available A/D chip and modify the source code to accomodate the
new A/D chip". At this point my boss has this sheepishly silly sort of
"how-do-I-tell-him" look on his face.  Up until this time I had no
involvement in this particular product and didn't know that the source was
lost. Re-writing the original source was not an option. Ended up programming
a PIC chip to emulate the Sipex A/D so that we could use the existing object
code. Works - but not very elegant.

-- Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Denny Esterline
>
> That would at least be logicaly defendable, but no. Short on codespace on
> the eeprom, delete the comments in the source code. I wish I was kidding.
>



2005\09\21@130759 by Roland

flavicon
face
At 09:46 AM 21/09/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>> >But the worst part
..............

{Quote hidden}

Since the 68c11 chips are in all likehood 40pin dips, maybe you can go the route of a smd pic on a small pcb with a 40pin dip footprint. On your adapter-pcb, you can put all your prog/debugging connectors too. Don't know how big/complex the entire product is.


Regards
Roland Jollivet

2005\09\21@134340 by Dave Tweed

face
flavicon
face
William "Chops" Westfield <.....westfwKILLspamspam@spam@mac.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I thought about Forth, but that was *never* implemented as a pure
interpreter, except when executing a typed-in command line. The comments
didn't get included in the memory image (dictionary), so they couldn't
affect program size or performance. As you say, the primitive block
storage system used for source code wasted disk space anyway.

-- Dave Tweed

2005\09\21@135036 by Denny Esterline

picon face
>
> The 68HC11 is not recommended for new designs see http://www.freescale.com
> .
> A 68HC08, 68HCS08 or 68HC12 would be a much better choice if you really
> need
> to re-use old HC11 assembly code.

 I'm aware of that, but I don't think it applies in this case. As I
understand it, they don't want/need any new hardware, they just need some
features added to existing hardware. Existing hardware that was working well
with stable, mature, maintainable source code- until recently.
I realy don't have all the details yet, A guy I've been working with for
years recently changed jobs and became responsible for this mess (as the
customer). Looks like it'll take a couple months before there's enough
political force to change horses. If I play my cards right I'll be there to
pick up the pieces.
-Denny

2005\09\21@140556 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Sep 21, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Roland wrote:

> Since the 68c11 chips are in all likehood 40pin dips

Nah.  The usual 68hc11s are in 52pin (!) PLCCs, but the F1 variant
mentioned is apparently a 68pin PLCC.  Probably with external RAM
and perhaps EPROM, which might make implementing it on a PIC a lot
more difficult...

BillW

2005\09\21@163627 by John Ferrell

face picon face
I believe that Scott Adams (Dilbert.com) might have a use for the story
line...

John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2005\09\21@173010 by Peter

picon face


On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

>> But the worst part, the part they should be killed
>> for, they were running out of code space - so they
>> DELETED THE COMMENTS!!!
>
> I presume you mean disk space on the development system.
>
> They did not happen to keep any printouts of previous versions?

You see, they also ran out of toilet paper ...

Peter

2005\09\21@174423 by David Van Horn

picon face
> >> But the worst part, the part they should be killed
> >> for, they were running out of code space - so they
> >> DELETED THE COMMENTS!!!
> >
> > I presume you mean disk space on the development system.
> >
> > They did not happen to keep any printouts of previous versions?
>
> You see, they also ran out of toilet paper ...

They should have tried deleting all the extra spaces first.



2005\09\22@150007 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Douglas,

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:07:43 -0500, Douglas Wood wrote:

> I used to work with a guy who, upon receiving any source code, would strip
> all comments. His reasoning? The code should tell him everything he needs to
> know about the program.

I wonder if it was an ancestor of his who decided that the Titanic didn't need enough lifeboats for all of the
passengers, because it was unsinkable?  Or who decided that WW I pilots shouldn't have parachutes, as they
would encourage them to leave the aircraft rather than fight till the end?


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\09\26@233721 by Martin Klingensmith

flavicon
face
Denny Esterline wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Denny,
I have an old book that I used for an introduction to microprocessors
class. It is by Greenfield [Wray?] and is called "Using Microprocessor
and Microcomputers The Motorola Family" second edition. I think I got it
used on Amazon or half.com for a few dollars abs. max. It covers the
instruction set and every status register and gritty detail. I'm not
sure what devel board we used for them but http://technologicalarts.com/
has updated modules that you could get started with.
If you have used the PIC you will find the HC11 quite easy, which is not
to imply that they are similar beyond the fact that they are both very
simple.

--
Martin Klingensmith
http://wwia.org/
http://nnytech.net/

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...