> Seems like they could have added a bit "code protect disable". When this
> fuze gets blown, you can nolonger code protect. This would allow us to
> make the chip "un-protectable" for development and still be able to protect
> them for production. If the code protect is enabled before code protect
> disable, then the chip would forever be code protected. If the code
> protect disable was "enabled" before the code protect, the chip would be
> un-protected forever. Both bits should be un eraseable.
>
> Any thoughts.
>
> Norm
>
> At 06:34 PM 2/12/97 +0000, you wrote:
> >On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Mike wrote:
> >
> >> >David,
> >> >
> >> > Not that it is any consolation but I am looking at 3 PIC16C62A/JWs
> >> > out of a group of 5 that I had been using. These 3 all mysteriously
> >> > got code protected. Even though I have been especially careful and
> >> > am using a Microchip Promate programmer, it still happened.
> >>
> >> I understand that on HC705 series any code protection is via EPROM bit,
> >> I infer that code protection on PIC is via a fuse and therefore cannot
> >> be erased by UV ?
> >
> >Yeah I'd imagine so !
> >
> >>
> >> Does this also apply to the flash parts - wouldn't it be more efficient
> >> that the code protection be via EPROM type bit anyway ?
> >>
> >> Are there any moves by microchip (hi guys) to change to EPROM bit ?
> >>
> > I hate to say it but I recon judging by previous discussions I
> >have heard that the move was actually in the other direction. I reckon
> >that it may have been due to a worry by microchip that one may be able to
> >selectively erase parts of the windowed chip using perhaps a fine laser
> >beam or something. And by doing so only wipe the CP bit.. I.e. exposing
> >the protected code..
> > I am no expert on the subject so all I have just said is purely
> >hearsay. Please correct me if I'm wrong in those assumptions.
> > However on the note of Microchip doing something about the problem
> >I would suggest and hope I'm taken seriously that a variant of the
> >windowed chip be produced that has no code protect bit.. Surely this
> >wouldn't be difficult (I realise Chip changes incur fabrication costs )
> >but I believe there would definately be a large market for such chips as
> >most developers have no need to code protect their windowed versions..
> >It's easier to lock them in your drawer ! Could anyone who agrees with
> >this suggestion please voice your support to confrim such a market.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> And in any case since I hear that all code protected PIC parts are just
> >> as easy to read as the code protected motorola parts - wouldn't it be
> >> logical that a code protect chip could be erased and reused ?
> >>
> >
> > Hmmmm, Are you sure on that one ? I'm sure microchip wouldn't be
> >impressed !
> >
> >> Rgds
> >>
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >
> >
> > Dave.
> >
> >
> >
> >
http://www.csn.ul.ie/~david
> >
> >
>