Searching \ for '[PIC]: Bootloader for rfPIC12C509' 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/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'Bootloader for rfPIC12C509'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC]: Bootloader for rfPIC12C509'
2003\02\24@122528 by Bob Barr

flavicon
face
<topic tag added>

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:00:01 +0000, Mike Cummins wrote:

>I have used a bootloader  based on peter Kolomaznik version 2.5 from the microchipc website to
>program PIC 16F877 , can this code be used with the rfPIC12C509 (has an inbuilt transmitter) from
>Microchip and if not does anyone know of any web links with info on a suitable bootloader?

I'm not familiar with the rfPICs but it may be possible to
'cross-wire' from an '877 footprint to an rfPIC target board. This
would allow you to mimic the operation of the rfPIC while you develop
the code with the bootloader.

I've done this for a 16C745 project which let me use an ICD for
development (for the non-USB portion, of course). I used conditionals
to assemble the code differently for the development and product
variations. This mainly involved redefining port equates and the like.
Almost all of the code was identical between the two.


Regards, Bob

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spam_OUTlistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\02\24@131859 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
>> I have used a bootloader  based on peter Kolomaznik version 2.5 from
>> the microchipc website to program PIC 16F877 , can this code be used
>> with the rfPIC12C509 (has an inbuilt transmitter) from Microchip and
>> if not does anyone know of any web links with info on a suitable
>> bootloader?
>
> I'm not familiar with the rfPICs but it may be possible to
> 'cross-wire' from an '877 footprint to an rfPIC target board. This
> would allow you to mimic the operation of the rfPIC while you develop
> the code with the bootloader.
>
> I've done this for a 16C745 project which let me use an ICD for
> development (for the non-USB portion, of course). I used conditionals
> to assemble the code differently for the development and product
> variations. This mainly involved redefining port equates and the like.
> Almost all of the code was identical between the two.

The 12C509 has the 12 bit core, wherease the 16F877 has the 14 bit core.
I wouldn't want to develop code on one for the other.


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

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\02\24@155708 by Bob Barr

flavicon
face
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:18:32 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:

>>
>> I'm not familiar with the rfPICs but it may be possible to
>> 'cross-wire' from an '877 footprint to an rfPIC target board. This
>> would allow you to mimic the operation of the rfPIC while you develop
>> the code with the bootloader.
>>
>> I've done this for a 16C745 project which let me use an ICD for
>> development (for the non-USB portion, of course). I used conditionals
>> to assemble the code differently for the development and product
>> variations. This mainly involved redefining port equates and the like.
>> Almost all of the code was identical between the two.
>
>The 12C509 has the 12 bit core, wherease the 16F877 has the 14 bit core.
>I wouldn't want to develop code on one for the other.
>

Good point, Olin. The differences could be a lot more significant than
in my case of two 14-bit cores. The instruction mnemonics are somewhat
similar but there are quite a few more features on the '877 that you'd
have to be aware of.


Regards, Bob

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\02\25@041758 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
> >The 12C509 has the 12 bit core, wherease the 16F877 has the 14 bit core.
> >I wouldn't want to develop code on one for the other.


Why not?? I do all my 12 core development this way,
on a 16F84 etc with flash memory that takes <20 seconds
to reprogram ICSP while the circuit is running, ie
code/program/run cycles of seconds each. You're
suggesting rotating/erasing window chips is better??

It's no big deal, just avoid addlw, sublw, use retlw
instead of return and pay some attention to stack and
long gotos etc. Pin allocation should be handled by
defines etc anyway and when development is complete
you just change the chip type and re-assemble. :o)

What's a better way to develop for the 12-core parts?
Real-time ICE?? Not all of us want to spend that sort
of money just to use the "cheap" PICs. ;o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu>

2003\02\25@074208 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
> Why not?? I do all my 12 core development this way,
> on a 16F84 etc with flash memory that takes <20 seconds
> to reprogram ICSP while the circuit is running, ie
> code/program/run cycles of seconds each. You're
> suggesting rotating/erasing window chips is better??
>
> It's no big deal, just avoid addlw, sublw, use retlw
> instead of return and pay some attention to stack and
> long gotos etc. Pin allocation should be handled by
> defines etc anyway and when development is complete
> you just change the chip type and re-assemble. :o)

As long as you understand all the gotchas it can work for you.  I think it
is an "advanced" topic that newbies shouldn't attempt.  By the way, you
also have to watch out for the different program memory paging, with
subroutines entry points only allowed in the first half of each 512 word
page.

> What's a better way to develop for the 12-core parts?
> Real-time ICE?? Not all of us want to spend that sort
> of money just to use the "cheap" PICs. ;o)

I've never used the ICE for a 12 bit core part, and don't own any of these
processor modules.  These programs are so simple by necessity that they
debug easily with the simulator.  For final testing I use JW parts.  I
have eight 12C508A around here and rotate them thru the eraser.  So far I
haven't outrun the eraser.

An even better answer is to us 12F629 or 12F675.


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

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu>

2003\02\25@075241 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I've never used the ICE for a 12 bit core part, and don't own
>
> An even better answer is to us 12F629 or 12F675.

That won't help much, as these are 14-bit core parts. Sorry, I did not
invent the uChip numbering scheme (I guess it must be the same guy who
created the silly paging scheme on the 12-bit cores). 18 is for 16-bit
cores, 12 is for 8-pin chips, and 16 is for almost everything else (and
then there are the 17's, but I never looked at those).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu>

2003\02\25@080310 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
>> An even better answer is to us 12F629 or 12F675.
>
> That won't help much, as these are 14-bit core parts.

Yeah, I know, but they are pin compatible.  Unless it is a very high
volume application, the 12 bit core parts aren't worth the trouble
anymore.

> Sorry, I did not
> invent the uChip numbering scheme (I guess it must be the same guy who
> created the silly paging scheme on the 12-bit cores). 18 is for 16-bit
> cores, 12 is for 8-pin chips, and 16 is for almost everything else (and
> then there are the 17's, but I never looked at those).

Even new Microchip FAEs seem to take a while to get up to speed on this
alphabet soup.  By the way, the 17 family is also a 16 bit core, although
different from the 18 family.  And then there's the lone 14 family member,
which seems to have been disowned.


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

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu>

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2003 , 2004 only
- Today
- New search...