Searching \ for '[PIC] 18F6527 errata' 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=18F
Search entire site for: '18F6527 errata'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC] 18F6527 errata'
2007\03\05@111107 by Artem Zezyulinskiy / SEDATELEC

flavicon
face
Hello!

I want use the PIC18F6527 for it pin number, number of timers and A/D
converters, PWM modules. I migrate my project from PICs 16F777 / 16F946.
On the Microchip site I view the Silicon Errata that enumerate a 9 issues.

The idiot question is : is the 6527 a good pic or no?

The number of issues is large because of strong use of pic or it' bad chip?

Thanks

Artem


2007\03\05@111654 by Artem Zezyulinskiy / SEDATELEC

flavicon
face
Rectification :
On a new version (8/2006) of the Silicon errata
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/80253b.pdf

is a 23 issues.

is bad or no?

2007\03\05@122620 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Rectification :
>On a new version (8/2006) of the Silicon errata
> http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/80253b.pdf
>
>is a 23 issues.
>
>is bad or no?

Well, work your way through them, and decide if the issues affect you.

Only you can decide if each individual issue affects your application. None
of them appear to be show stoppers, as most have some sort of hardware or
software work around.

2007\03\05@130120 by Artem Zezyulinskiy / SEDATELEC

flavicon
face
Thanx Alan for your responce.

The precision of A/D module is critical for my application. And
recalibrate each pic with a known reference voltage is cost a money.
If I understand well its Errata dont touch others 4 Pic from this family.
Well, i will take a 18F6627 for a 1.4$ plus.

Thank you again.

Alan B. Pearce a écrit :
{Quote hidden}

>

2007\03\05@133102 by John Temples

flavicon
face
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Artem Zezyulinskiy / SEDATELEC wrote:

> The precision of A/D module is critical for my application. And
> recalibrate each pic with a known reference voltage is cost a money.
> If I understand well its Errata dont touch others 4 Pic from this family.
> Well, i will take a 18F6627 for a 1.4$ plus.

It looks to me like they are all affected.

--
John W. Temples, III

2007\03\05@135833 by Artem Zezyulinskiy / SEDATELEC

flavicon
face
On the first page of errata (DS80253B
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/80253b.pdf ) :
The following silicon errata apply *only* to
PIC18F6527/6622/8527/8622 devices with these
Device/Revision IDs: ...

It's no mention of the 18F6627. I'm wrong?


John Temples a écrit :
> >  ... i will take a 18F6627 for a 1.4$ plus....
>  
> It looks to me like they are all affected.
>
> --
> John W. Temples, III
>  

2007\03\05@140634 by Jesse Lackey

flavicon
face
Of course, the 23 issues are the known/documented ones.  Having found a
showstopper undocumented problem with the 4610, with 38 documented
errata, I personally would never use a PIC that has a list of problems
this long for anything.  Why do microchip's beta testing for them?

J

Alan B. Pearce wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\03\05@142645 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Artem Zezyulinskiy / SEDATELEC wrote:
> Rectification :
> On a new version (8/2006) of the Silicon errata
> http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/80253b.pdf
>
> is a 23 issues.
>
> is bad or no?
>
>  
Generally speaking, you should avoid a chip that has so many issues.
While they will
be fixed, it might take a year or two. But having so many, experience
says there are
probably more to be uncovered.

Just my 2 cents.

--Bob

2007\03\05@143002 by John Temples

flavicon
face
part 1 612 bytes content-type:TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed (decoded quoted-printable)

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Artem Zezyulinskiy / SEDATELEC wrote:

> On the first page of errata (DS80253B
> http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/80253b.pdf ) :
> The following silicon errata apply *only* to
> PIC18F6527/6622/8527/8622 devices with these
> Device/Revision IDs: ...
>
> It's no mention of the 18F6627. I'm wrong?

Did you look at the 18F6627 errata?

> John Temples a écrit :
>>>  ... i will take a 18F6627 for a 1.4$ plus....
>>
>> It looks to me like they are all affected.

--
John W. Temples, III

part 2 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...