Searching \ for 'PIC16c84 programming problems' 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/devprogs.htm?key=programming
Search entire site for: 'PIC16c84 programming problems'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'PIC16c84 programming problems'
1996\10\06@112734 by David Negro

picon face
Folks,
I have just started getting my hands into the PIC line of microcontrollers.
I thought that the best way would be with the 16c84 since it is EEPROM and
can easily be reprogrammed.  Unfortunately I own a macintosh an cannot use
the widely available PC Serial line programmers.  So I went about designing
my own using a HC11 as a controller to program the PIC.  I compiled Tim
Rossi's assembler <http://www.jyu.fi/~trossi/pic/> on my computer and used
his example as my first project.  His first example was a simple LED
flaser.  It seemed to work fine, and I was even able to reprogram the PIC
to do a different flashing sequence, so I was sure that everything was set
on the programming side.  I then  went on to my next project (which was
probably too big a leap). I am trying to compile AN591 (Apple Desktop Bus
project) for the 16c84. After some modifications I was able to compile it
fine.  I tried programming my PIC, but unfortunately my project did not
work on the first try (when does it ever?)  But then I went back to my LED
flasher program.  I programmed it and inserted it into the circuit, and it
didn't work.  Figuring that maybe my ADB circuit had blown the PIC, I tried
a new one.  Programmed it to the LED flasser program, plugged it into the
circuit and it worked just fine.  Changed the LED flasher program, retried
it and it worked fine.  Programmed the PIC to the ADB program, then
*without* inserting it into and circuit, I programmed it back to the LED
flasher program.  PLugged it into the circuit and it didn't work ;-(  I
tried again and again with both PIC's to program them to a known good
program (the LED flasher) but without any luck. They would not work.  So to
get down to the bottom of things, could something that I programmed (in the
ADB HEX file), ruined my PICs?  Maybe it is the way I am sending it?  Is
there any wierd sequence that would kill my PIC?

Any suggestions on how to bring back to life my PICs?
I know it is hard to figure out what is *REALLY* going on just based on my
description, but does anyone have any idea what is going on?  I can supply
HEX files for both of the PIC programs that I have been using.


Thanks,
-Dave Negro

P.S.  I should have mentioned that my programmer does not have a verify
mode.  At least it didn't.  I rewrote it to verify, but it isn't working.
HOwever, I am not sure if it is the PIC that isn't working, or my verify
code on the HC11 that isn't working.

1996\10\06@144444 by John Payson

picon face
>                                   Changed the LED flasher program, retried
> it and it worked fine.  Programmed the PIC to the ADB program, then
> *without* inserting it into and circuit, I programmed it back to the LED
> flasher program.  PLugged it into the circuit and it didn't work ;-(  I
> tried again and again with both PIC's to program them to a known good
> program (the LED flasher) but without any luck. They would not work.  So to
> get down to the bottom of things, could something that I programmed (in the
> ADB HEX file), ruined my PICs?  Maybe it is the way I am sending it?  Is
> there any wierd sequence that would kill my PIC?

My conjecture would be that your programmer does not have a fast enough
rise on the VPP/MClr pin.  If this pin rises too slowly, the PIC will
start to execute code before going into programming mode and programming
will start just past the last instruction executed rather than address
zero as you'd expect.

If this was going on, your LED flasher program might still seem to work, even
though it was loaded in the wrong place and all the gotos weren't going to
the right parts of the code.  Your ADB program, however, probably has a more
complicated structure; once it's been loaded into the PIC, it may cause the
code to get hung up in a bizarre spot right on power-up (which will then be
where programming will start).  The only way out of this situation is to fix
the VPP/MClr circuitry to ensure a fast enough rise time.

1996\10\07@101303 by Shawn Ellis

flavicon
face
At 11:29 AM 10/6/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Folks,
> Unfortunately I own a macintosh an cannot use
>the widely available PC Serial line programmers.

Buy a IBM.

1996\10\07@102751 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
>
> At 11:29 AM 10/6/96 -0400, you wrote:
> >Folks,
> > Unfortunately I own a macintosh an cannot use
> >the widely available PC Serial line programmers.
>
> Buy a IBM.

That isn't very productive. Even with the inexpensive cost of PC hardware
why should someone have to change platforms simply to do development.

While I understand why Microchip has standardized on a single platform
I fail to understand why someone doesn't realize that there's a niche
here and attempt to fill it.

I'm a fervent believer that hardware, OS, and applications need not be
mated at the hip together. One should be able to development on the
hardware they like, running the OS they like, using the applications they
like.

Fact of the matter is that with the release of the interface specifications
for any of the PC serial programmers, it would not be too hard to generate
a MAC interface for them.

But those specs are difficult if not impossible to obtain.

Cross platform development is a good thing. We should encourage it instead
of telling folks to stagnate on a single platform.

BAJ - ardent Linux user and PIC developer...

1996\10\07@124342 by Martin J. Maney
flavicon
face
> > Buy a IBM.
>
> That isn't very productive. Even with the inexpensive cost of PC hardware
> why should someone have to change platforms simply to do development.

Historical note: it's not so long ago that the only advice available
would have been "pay through the nose for the vendor's proprietary
hardware and software".  In comparison, "buy a PClone" is pretty nearly
painless, and vastly much less expensive.

> While I understand why Microchip has standardized on a single platform
> I fail to understand why someone doesn't realize that there's a niche
> here and attempt to fill it.

Perhaps because they believe the niche is too small to be profitable?
Frankly, I don't know anyone who uses a Mac for software development,
though I know a good number of developers who prefer to use a Mac for
doing documentation, artwork, & all that DTP-ish side of the job.

> I'm a fervent believer that hardware, OS, and applications need not be
> mated at the hip together. One should be able to development on the
> hardware they like, running the OS they like, using the applications they
> like.

It's a lovely sentiment, but it has never been so, and probably never
will be so.  The problem is that most interesting programs have target
system dependencies, and in the general case require significant effort
to port from one traget to another - and someone has to pay for that.

1996\10\07@133450 by brooke

flavicon
face
> > >Folks,
> > > Unfortunately I own a macintosh an cannot use
> > >the widely available PC Serial line programmers.
> >
> > Buy a IBM.

Another option would be for Microchip to write their development code
in the LabVIEW language by National Instruments (NI).  This is a
graphical
language (there is a GUI but the language it'self is graphical).  The
code, once written can be run on PC, MAC, Sun, and HP-PA risc machines
with NO changes.  True cross paltform portability.

I am biased on this one since I am a member of the NI ALLIANCE program
and am a CERTIFIED INSTRUMENT DRIVER DEVELOPER.  I have written a lot of
code on my PC and taken it to customers who use Macs with direct and
total
portability.

Brooke Clarke
Rack and Stack Systems

1996\10\07@142342 by DSchmidt Tech

flavicon
face
I thought the problem was that the Mac doesn't have a standard serial
port/parallel port.  Writing in LabVIEW isn't going to solve this problem
if the hardware configuration doesn't change.  Unless you want
MicroChip/Parallax to have GPIB only programmers and have everyone buy
$200+ GPIB cards.  I've seen 286 clones around here for less than $100.
Dave


On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, brooke wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1996\10\07@170409 by fastfwd

face
flavicon
face
Someone -- I don't remember who -- wrote:

> Unfortunately I own a macintosh an cannot use the widely available
> PC Serial line programmers.

   See the answer to Question #71 in the "Microchip PIC" area of
   the "Answers" section on my company's web page.

   -Andy

=== Andrew Warren - spam_OUTfastfwdTakeThisOuTspamix.netcom.com                 ===
=== Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California          ===
===                                                       ===
=== Custodian of the PICLIST Fund -- For more info, see:  ===
=== http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499/fund.html ===

1996\10\07@202645 by Chuck McManis

flavicon
face
Unfortunately "Buy a PC" is kind of like "Buy an Oscilloscope" these
days. I finally bought a 386 to act as a tool holder for some software.
I do no programming on it, and run no other applications, it cost me
$300. (which was roughly a third what my oscilloscope cost, and
half what the signal generator cost)

--Chuck

----------
From:   Byron A Jeff[SMTP:.....byronKILLspamspam@spam@CC.GATECH.EDU]
Sent:   Monday, October 07, 1996 7:26 AM
To:     Multiple recipients of list PICLIST
Subject:        Re: PIC16c84 programming problems

>
> At 11:29 AM 10/6/96 -0400, you wrote:
> >Folks,
> > Unfortunately I own a macintosh an cannot use
> >the widely available PC Serial line programmers.
>
> Buy a IBM.

That isn't very productive. Even with the inexpensive cost of PC hardware
why should someone have to change platforms simply to do development.

While I understand why Microchip has standardized on a single platform
I fail to understand why someone doesn't realize that there's a niche
here and attempt to fill it.

I'm a fervent believer that hardware, OS, and applications need not be
mated at the hip together. One should be able to development on the
hardware they like, running the OS they like, using the applications they
like.

Fact of the matter is that with the release of the interface specifications
for any of the PC serial programmers, it would not be too hard to generate
a MAC interface for them.

But those specs are difficult if not impossible to obtain.

Cross platform development is a good thing. We should encourage it instead
of telling folks to stagnate on a single platform.

BAJ - ardent Linux user and PIC developer...

1996\10\07@224443 by John Miskimins

flavicon
face
This may fall into the "for what its worth category" but here goes.....

I use both  Macs and DOS boxes.  I prefer the Mac for both development and
"writing manuals" and other graphics intensive tasks.  I use a windows
based machine because there some apps out there that are only written for
that platform.

On the Mac side Crossbow from peripheral issues (I can dig up their URL if
you wish) seems quite capable and for other processors such as the Motorola
line development tools are readily available for both platforms.

There is no single "best" machine.  Publishing the interface specifications
for the programmers that are out there would seem like a sensible thing to
do even if there were only one platform.

Regards,
John Miskimins

1996\10\07@232618 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
>
> Unfortunately "Buy a PC" is kind of like "Buy an Oscilloscope" these
> days. I finally bought a 386 to act as a tool holder for some software.
> I do no programming on it, and run no other applications, it cost me
> $300. (which was roughly a third what my oscilloscope cost, and
> half what the signal generator cost)

Understood. However the problem remains that it requires additional equipment,
more space, power, and a change in mindset to use. The computer the
gentleman already had (the Mac) is perfectly capable of doing the job. The
only issue is software and mindset.

Other than the fact the tools don't exist what's wrong with using a Mac,
Linux, Amiga, NeXT, or other box for development?

I've done development for 10 years without an oscilloscope. That's why
I like microcomputers - all you need is software and a logic probe.

BAJ

1996\10\08@083452 by Shawn Ellis

flavicon
face
At 10:26 AM 10/7/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>> At 11:29 AM 10/6/96 -0400, you wrote:
>> >Folks,
>> > Unfortunately I own a macintosh an cannot use
>> >the widely available PC Serial line programmers.
>>
>> Buy a IBM.
>
>That isn't very productive. Even with the inexpensive cost of PC hardware
>why should someone have to change platforms simply to do development.
>
No, what's not very productive is spending thousands of dollars and hours
trying to develop some halfway-working MAC programmer when you can buy an
IBM for a mere $600 that will run anything you want  (Except some high-end
games!).  And if you think THAT was hard, try getting an emulator to work
properly with the thing.

Why not change platforms?  He who fears change, fears progress.
Besides I'm sure whatever you got for the IBM would be much easier to use
than anything you could write yourself, and it would be updated by the
companies without you haveing to constantly re-write it.

So:
Buy a IBM.

1996\10\08@095624 by myke predko

flavicon
face
Dave,

The Mac/LabVIEW can output standard RS232 (and LabVIEW drivers have been
written for a number of different busses/hardware platforms), so that
wouldn't be an issue.

The basic issues with LabVIEW is the price ($1,500 for the basic license,
$3,000 for the "Developer's Kit" CD) and the compatibility across
platforms/OS's.

The price would put it out of the reach of the hobbyist/"What if/Let's try"
business that MPLAB really nails.  And the differences between Operating
Systems that LabVIEW doesn't account for means that Common
Compilers/Assemblers/Simulators could probably not be written.  I think
LabVIEW could be used for the Programmer and maybe an ICE across platforms,
but that would be it.

LabVIEW is an excellent tool for the failure analysis
laborator/manufacturing line (which is what we use it for).  But, it really
isn't appropriate for this type of application especially considering the
cost.  As Dave pointed out, you can get a 486 Windows based PC with 8 Meg
RAM *new* here in Toronto for under $300 Canadian.  A used colour VGA tube
would probably set you back $100.

Myke


{Quote hidden}

Do you ever feel like an XT Clone caught in the Pentium Pro Zone?

1996\10\08@132629 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   >That isn't very productive. Even with the inexpensive cost of PC hardware
   >why should someone have to change platforms simply to do development.
   >
   No, what's not very productive is spending thousands of dollars and hours
   trying to develop some halfway-working MAC programmer when you can buy an
   IBM for a mere $600 that will run anything you want.

Agree completely.

Look, as long as the low-end tools we're talking about are DOS based, you
can probably get a used IBM clone for under $100.  That means you can get
a complete programmer for PICs for well under $200.  If it makes you feel
better, don't think of it as a kludgey computer running an evil operating
system, just think of it as a stand-alone programming box.  You don't have
to learn much about msdos to use it, either...

BillW

1996\10\08@133930 by Brooke

flavicon
face
myke predko wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
.........
>
> The basic issues with LabVIEW is the price ($1,500 for the basic license,
> $3,000 for the "Developer's Kit" CD) and the compatibility across
> platforms/OS's.

Once a developer that has LabVIEW buys the APPLICATION BUILDER his cost
for
each application sold is $20 ($0 if the customer is using any NI
hardware).

Have Fun,
Brooke Clarke

1996\10\08@134127 by nigelg

flavicon
picon face
In message  <199610080325.XAA22240spamKILLspamgemini.cc.gatech.edu> .....PICLISTKILLspamspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU
writes:

> > Unfortunately "Buy a PC" is kind of like "Buy an Oscilloscope" these
> > days. I finally bought a 386 to act as a tool holder for some software.
> > I do no programming on it, and run no other applications, it cost me
> > $300. (which was roughly a third what my oscilloscope cost, and
> > half what the signal generator cost)
>
> Understood. However the problem remains that it requires additional equipment,
> more space, power, and a change in mindset to use. The computer the
> gentleman already had (the Mac) is perfectly capable of doing the job. The
> only issue is software and mindset.
>
> Other than the fact the tools don't exist what's wrong with using a Mac,
> Linux, Amiga, NeXT, or other box for development?

Well the Amiga should be no problem, it has a nice bi-directional parallel
port - far better than the usual IBM port. What about the MAC, does that
have a nice port you can 'wiggle' pins up and down?. Assuming it has, it
should be pretty easy to convert David Tait's Basic or C source code to
implement a 16C84 programmer.

Nigel.

         /----------------------------------------------------------\
         | Nigel Goodwin   | Internet : EraseMEnigelgspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTlpilsley.demon.co.uk |
         | Lower Pilsley   | Web Page : http://www.lpilsley.demon.co.uk    |
         | Chesterfield    |                                        |
         | England         |                                        |
         \----------------------------------------------------------/

1996\10\08@172256 by smegtra

picon face
First off, who really cares whether writing Mac development tools is
"worth doing?"  If someone is willing to write them, then to that
person, it must be worth it.  It is unimportant whether the rest of the
community recognizes the need.

I've been kicking around the idea of writing some programming software
for the Smac for a few months.  As far as I can see, these are the
salient points:

       Without programmer specs from someone's programmer, I need to create my
own.  I have not researched the availability of programmer specs, nor
the possibility of using a 'scope/logic probe to reverse engineer them.
However, reading Microchip's specs for programmers and creating my own
shouldn't be too tough.  But, if I do that, any Mac developer is
obviously stuck with my programmer.  'Twould be much cooler to use a
pre-existing one.

       Writing the software is pretty trivial.  For those that aren't familiar
with Mac development, I'd only need to write a Communications Toolbox
module.  This is simply a description of a communications protocol.
Technically, that'd be it, but I guess it would also be cool to write an
application to handle selecting which hex file to use, doing blank
checks, verifies, etc.  In both cases, the software is pretty trivial.
Mac software is *really* easy to write, cause the OS does most of the
work.

       However, without at least a compiler and an emulator, the whole thing
is kind of pointless.  This is why I haven't done it.  It would be sort
of silly to have to rely on SoftWindows for this, and sillier yet to do
my compiling and testing on a pc, then port the hex file over to the
Smac.  I've considered writing a compiler and an emulator for the Mac,
and I guess it could be done, but it would be lots more work, and it
would need to be constantly maintained.

So, to sum up, as I see it, the problem is not writing a driver to
program parts, but writing the software tools to make having a driver
worthwhile.

BTW, for those who are interested, I use an ibm clone for all my PIC
stuff and a Smac for everything else.  I don't really have any
complaints with either OS; I just think it would be interesting to do
the Smac development.  Wow, I sound defensive, guess I've been watching
the newsgroup IBM vs. Smac threads too long:->

Jason Harris

1996\10\08@184001 by Ben L Wirz

flavicon
face
Hello Everyone,

       I'm no Mac Expert, but I do know you can get a Mac Card that has
a 486 processor on it along with Parallel and Serial ports.  If someone
wanted to stick with their Mac and avoid buying a new monitor, this may
be the way to go.  It also would no take up any extra desk space.

Just a thought.

Ben,

Ben Wirz                For Great Deals on Nitinol Wire, H-Bridge IC's,
Wirz Electronics        Polaroid Sonar Units, PIC 16C84's, and more
blw2spamspam_OUTcec.wustl.edu      Hobbyist Robotic & Electronic Supplies, visit:
                       http://cec.wustl.edu/~blw2/index.html

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, William Chops Westfield wrote:

{Quote hidden}

1996\10\08@214525 by Martin McCormick

flavicon
face
In message <@spam@CMM.0.90.2.844795538.billwKILLspamspampuli.cisco.com>, William Chops Westfield
writes:
>If it makes you feel
>better, don't think of it as a kludgey computer running an evil operating
>system, just think of it as a stand-alone programming box.  You don't have
>to learn much about msdos to use it, either...

       Great point.  An article I once read in the business section of
either "Newsweek" or "U.S. News" suggested that a good business stragegy
was to think of a desirable business application and then buy the hardware
that would best run it.  While this was aimed at the legger and spread-sheet
croud, it applies to us also.  No one platform is perfect for every
application so it isn't totally far-fetched to spend your biggest bucks
on the system that you like best and then shop around for a good deal on
another system that might not be your first choice but will really scream
through some particular application.

Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK 36.7N97.4W
OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group

1996\10\08@234122 by Robert Lunn

flavicon
face
> An article I once read in the business section of
> either "Newsweek" or "U.S. News" suggested that a good business strategy
> was to think of a desirable business application and then buy the hardware
> that would best run it.

       There's an old 'Mythical Man Month' saying that's applicable
       to this thread:

               "The language and operating system that's best to
                use is the language and operating system that your
                best programmer knows best."

___Bob

1996\10\09@003545 by Luigi Rizzo

flavicon
face
> I've been kicking around the idea of writing some programming software
> for the Smac for a few months.  As far as I can see, these are the
> salient points:
>
>         Without programmer specs from someone's programmer, I need to create
my
> own.  I have not researched the availability of programmer specs, nor

evidently not. There are many PC programmers for the pic, with source
code. Just pick one, and adapt the code.

>         However, without at least a compiler and an emulator, the whole thing
> is kind of pointless.  This is why I haven't done it.  It would be sort

There are many assemblers and at least two emulators, in source
format.  All the stuff that I use (programmer; assembler; emulator)
is available from my home page in source format, although there
might be other sources.

       Luigi
====================================================================
Luigi Rizzo                     Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione
email: KILLspamluigiKILLspamspamiet.unipi.it       Universita' di Pisa
tel: +39-50-568533              via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy)
fax: +39-50-568522              http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/
====================================================================

1996\10\09@133307 by David Negro

picon face
>Why not change platforms?  He who fears change, fears progress.
>Besides I'm sure whatever you got for the IBM would be much easier to use
>than anything you could write yourself, and it would be updated by the
>companies without you haveing to constantly re-write it.
>
>So:
>Buy a IBM.

First off I would like to apologize for having started all this, although
it was not my intention.

Secondly,  I am familiar with many operating systems including MacOS,Un*x,
Linux, OpenWin, MS Windows, DOS, and have even had a chance to play with
the new up and coming BeOS (Way COOL!!)  The problem here is not the
disinterest in changing systems, but rather the resources.  I am a college
student, on a college budget.  Not only do I not want to buy another
computer at this point, but I do not want to transport it in the few moves
that I have left.

Thirdly, I don't do projects because they are easy.  I do projects because
they interest me and I think that I will learn something from them.  Yes it
would be easier to go out an buy a PC and a programmer, but what have I
gained in terms of knowledge from it?  Nothing really.  I would then be
limited to that platform and that programmer.  By doing it myself, I get a
better understanding of the PIC programming process as well as a better
understanding of PICs in general.  If I had a project for PICs already
lined up, and I was in a time crunch, and I had the resources (cash), I
would have no difficulty in changing systems.  As is, making a programmer
is a project of it's own, keeps me busy and keeps the noodle working.

So if you want to go the easy way, follow OTHER people's footsteps, then be
my guest.  Personally, when the resources are not available, I like to fill
in the gaps myself.  You can't always rely on other people and need to be
able to do things for yourself!

Lastly, Thank you to the people that did respond to my main question about
the programming problem.  I have not had time to look into the problem
further, but will get to that shortly.  Thanks.

-Dave Negro
RemoveMEdln2TakeThisOuTspamcornell.edu

P.S. - Also remember that I using a Motorola 68HC11 microcontroller as the
base for my programmer.  When I work out the last of my bugs, anyone with a
rs232 terminal will be able to use my programming setup.   People should
not be stuck to any one computer because I will have to agree that each
computer has its advantages and disadvantages.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1996 , 1997 only
- Today
- New search...