Post by thread:[PIC]: Code protection on 16C73B

Hi, I have a 16C73B I was playing with for some time, but now when I try to program it and read it back it comes as all 00. Any Ideas on what this can be? May it be that I have (by error) set the code protection on? How would the chip read if I had done so? Any other ideas? Thanks, Esteban.

Esteban Traid wrote: > > Hi, > I have a 16C73B I was playing with for some time, but now when I try to > program it and read it back it comes as all 00. > Any Ideas on what this can be? > May it be that I have (by error) set the code protection on? How would the > chip read if I had done so? > Any other ideas? > Thanks, > > Esteban. It sounds like you have accidently code protected the device. It will read 0000's when code protected. -- Best regards Tony http://www.picnpoke.com spam_OUTsalesTakeThisOuTpicnpoke.com

Thats exactly what you would read: All zeros, if the Code Protect is set. And probably there is no chance to reanimate this PIC. Martin ;********************************************** ;** name: Martin Schaefer ** ;** company: elektronik 21 GmbH, Germany ** ;** e-mail: .....schaeferKILLspam@spam@elektronik21.de ** ;********************************************** > {Original Message removed}

I have gotten similar error messages on my PIC programmer CP on and all zeroes, but I have been able to use this PICs again after a heavy UV shower :) I run double the amount of time that I normally erase with. These chips were 17c756 Ceramic Pckg Go figure Good luck Marius Martin Schäfer wrote: > > Thats exactly what you would read: > > All zeros, if the Code Protect is set. And probably there is no chance to > reanimate this PIC. > > Martin

I have been experimenting with a 16C73B for a couple of weeks with no problems and in the last few days I have ruined 2 of them by accidentally code protecting them. The first time I thought it had been my mistake, but then I has more carefull and the second one only lasted a couple of hours, and I am completely sure about checking the code protection bits before eache individual programming. So I think this might have something to do with teh programmer (Ider HW or SW) or somehing about my PC. I am using Bojan´s Picall programmer with home made HW on a generic pentium 233 PC. Any ideas on what can be hapening? or what condition should I avoid to reduce teh risk of this happening again? This is not funy sience this chips cost $40 each here. Regards, Esteban.

One thing which would do it on the setup I use is if I had it set to read the file in before programming. Thus overriding any setup I had already done. Can you use a flash part instead. I use these almost exlusively for development now. I just leave the code protection bit set all the time. Flash parts are much cheaper than eprom parts. Martin {Quote hidden}> I have been experimenting with a 16C73B for a couple of weeks with no > problems and in the last few days I have ruined 2 of them by accidentally > code protecting them. The first time I thought it had been my mistake, but > then I has more carefull and the second one only lasted a couple of hours, > and I am completely sure about checking the code protection bits before > eache individual programming. > So I think this might have something to do with teh programmer (Ider HW or > SW) or somehing about my PC. > I am using Bojan4s Picall programmer with home made HW on a generic pentium > 233 PC. > > Any ideas on what can be hapening? or what condition should I avoid to > reduce teh risk of this happening again? > This is not funy sience this chips cost $40 each here. > Regards, > > Esteban.

MChip should provide a code-protect-protect-bit... so that one can protect himself agains accidentally programming the code-protectbit <g> Regards, Jilles Oldenbeuving jillesKILLspamrendo.dekooi.nl ------- I have been experimenting with a 16C73B for a couple of weeks with no problems and in the last few days I have ruined 2 of them by accidentally code protecting them. The first time I thought it had been my mistake, but then I has more carefull and the second one only lasted a couple of hours, and I am completely sure about checking the code protection bits before eache individual programming. So I think this might have something to do with teh programmer (Ider HW or SW) or somehing about my PC. I am using Bojan´s Picall programmer with home made HW on a generic pentium 233 PC. Any ideas on what can be hapening? or what condition should I avoid to reduce teh risk of this happening again? This is not funy sience this chips cost $40 each here. Regards, Esteban.

You'd forget to set it :o) {Quote hidden}> MChip should provide a code-protect-protect-bit... so that one can > protect himself agains accidentally programming the code-protectbit <g> > > Regards, > > Jilles Oldenbeuving > .....jillesKILLspam.....rendo.dekooi.nl > > ------- > > I have been experimenting with a 16C73B for a couple of weeks with no > problems and in the last few days I have ruined 2 of them by accidentally > code protecting them. The first time I thought it had been my mistake, but > then I has more carefull and the second one only lasted a couple of hours, > and I am completely sure about checking the code protection bits before > eache individual programming. > So I think this might have something to do with teh programmer (Ider HW or > SW) or somehing about my PC. > I am using Bojan´s Picall programmer with home made HW on a generic > pentium > 233 PC. > > Any ideas on what can be hapening? or what condition should I avoid to > reduce teh risk of this happening again? > This is not funy sience this chips cost $40 each here. > Regards, > > Esteban.

I disagree, If you had equal problems with this then you could end up sending out your valueable code to customers without any protection. Maybe some devices with NO code protection could be made available. Martin {Quote hidden}> MChip should provide a code-protect-protect-bit... so that one can > protect himself agains accidentally programming the code-protectbit <g> > > Regards, > > Jilles Oldenbeuving > EraseMEjillesspam_OUTTakeThisOuTrendo.dekooi.nl > > ------- > > I have been experimenting with a 16C73B for a couple of weeks with no > problems and in the last few days I have ruined 2 of them by accidentally > code protecting them. The first time I thought it had been my mistake, but > then I has more carefull and the second one only lasted a couple of hours, > and I am completely sure about checking the code protection bits before > eache individual programming. > So I think this might have something to do with teh programmer (Ider HW or > SW) or somehing about my PC. > I am using Bojan4s Picall programmer with home made HW on a generic pentium > 233 PC. > > Any ideas on what can be hapening? or what condition should I avoid to > reduce teh risk of this happening again? > This is not funy sience this chips cost $40 each here. > Regards, > > Esteban.

>----- Original Message ----- >From: Martin Hill <eaxmjhispam_OUTNOTTINGHAM.AC.UK> >To: <@spam@PICLISTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> >Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 11:03 AM >Subject: Re: [PIC]: Code protection on 16C73B >I disagree, > If you had equal problems with this then you could end up sending >out your valueable code to customers without any protection. >Maybe some devices with NO code protection could be made >available. Right: made out of bright pink plastic so that we'd never accidently send one to a customer! Bob Ammerman RAm Systems

Think this posting did not go through... I have been experimenting with a 16C73B for a couple of weeks with no problems and in the last few days I have ruined 2 of them by accidentally code protecting them. The first time I thought it had been my mistake, but then I has more carefull and the second one only lasted a couple of hours, and I am completely sure about checking the code protection bits before eache individual programming. So I think this might have something to do with teh programmer (Ider HW or SW) or somehing about my PC. I am using Bojan´s Picall programmer with home made HW on a generic pentium 233 PC. Any ideas on what can be hapening? or what condition should I avoid to reduce teh risk of this happening again? This is not funy sience this chips cost $40 each here. Regards, Esteban.

> Van: Martin Hill <KILLspameaxmjhiKILLspamNOTTINGHAM.AC.UK> > Aan: RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU > Onderwerp: Re: [PIC]: Code protection on 16C73B > Datum: maandag 26 juni 2000 17:03 That would not really be a problem *if* we had the possibility to check the *settings* ( adresses 0x2000 thru 0x200F) afterwards. As in : having a Write-protected, but *unscrambled* read of this area when the Read( / Write ?) -protect is set. I do think that being able to protect my JW -chips from inadvertedly enableing the Write-protect is a good idea. Not being able to Read-protect a OTP-chip is much less costly than Read-protect a JW -chip. And a (currently not possible) check afterwards of the configuration-data would alert you if there was a Write-failure of the Read-protection-bit. My 2 cents ..... Regards, Rudy Wieser {Quote hidden}> I disagree, > If you had equal problems with this then you could end up sending > out your valueable code to customers without any protection. > Maybe some devices with NO code protection could be made > available. > > Martin > > > MChip should provide a code-protect-protect-bit... so that one can > > protect himself agains accidentally programming the code-protectbit <g> > > > > Regards, > > > > Jilles Oldenbeuving > > spamBeGonejillesspamBeGonerendo.dekooi.nl