Searching \ for 'Production vs. Development programmers' 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=programmer
Search entire site for: 'Production vs. Development programmers'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Production vs. Development programmers'
2000\04\26@141614 by Mike Morris

flavicon
face
<x-flowed>Hi,

I was wondering if anyone has experienced failure modes in a PIC where the
part ceased operating when an upper or lower supply level was reached. I am
curious as to how critical it is for a pic in a well regulated end
application to be verified at high and low supplies.  Has anyone who uses a
production programmer seen a PIC fail a verify at one of the supply extremes?

Thanks!

- Mike

</x-flowed>

2000\04\26@162301 by Quitt, Walter

flavicon
face
I have not seen a PIC fail to verify in HI/LO Vcc testing.
We saw some Flex logic fall out the other day.
Those were older gray market parts, so they may have been fallout to begin
with.
We do the HI/LO verify always just in case.
Better safe than sorry when people are paying for the product.
If you are just playing, don't bother.

-W

{Original Message removed}

2000\04\26@171245 by Octavio Nogueira

flavicon
face
> I have not seen a PIC fail to verify in HI/LO Vcc testing.
> We saw some Flex logic fall out the other day.
> Those were older gray market parts, so they may have been fallout to begin
> with.
> We do the HI/LO verify always just in case.
> Better safe than sorry when people are paying for the product.
> If you are just playing, don't bother.

I have a 16C62/JW that fail at vdd min but verify
ok at 5V

Friendly Regards

Octavio Nogueira
===================================================
spam_OUTnogueiraTakeThisOuTspampropic2.com                  ICQ# 19841898
ProPic tools - low cost PIC programmer and emulator
http://www.propic2.com
===================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Quitt, Walter <.....wquittKILLspamspam@spam@MICROJOIN.COM>
To: <PICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Production vs. Development programmers



> -W
>
> {Original Message removed}

2000\04\26@171858 by Quitt, Walter

flavicon
face
I got several JW or CL parts that do weird things.
I've come to the conclusion that those parts are just flakey.
They are NOT production parts.
We use OTPs for production.
Never had a problem with an OTP.

-Walt...

{Original Message removed}

2000\04\27@133622 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
Walter Quitt wrote:
>I have not seen a PIC fail to verify in HI/LO Vcc testing.
....
>We do the HI/LO verify always just in case.
>Better safe than sorry when people are paying for the product.
......


Walter, how do you handle the fact that you cannot verify a
code-protected PIC? HI/LO is useless here - or is there a way?

- Dan Michaels
Oricom Technologies
http://www.sni.net/~oricom
==========================

2000\04\27@134223 by Quitt, Walter

flavicon
face
We don't code our protect.
Our products don't go to a market that will likely try and steal stuff.
It's production equipment and it's oft times patented anyways.
Besides more power to them if they care too look!
Look at our web page and you should understand that the equipment
is far more complex than the just code embedded in processors:
http://www.microjoin.com

Walt...

{Original Message removed}

2000\04\27@141345 by Barry King

flavicon
face
Dan asked,

> Walter, how do you handle the fact that you cannot verify a
> code-protected PIC? HI/LO is useless here - or is there a way?

I think what the ProMate does is:
1) program all but the code protect
2) Verify Ho and Lo
3) if it verifies, then program the code protect.
4) Verify Code protected (Ho and Lo?)

FWIW, I've had one production burn failure in two years, (I assume it
was truely a bad die), and no PICs that verify but didn't work.

-Barry
------------
Barry King, KA1NLH
NRG Systems "Measuring the Wind's Energy"
http://www.nrgsystems.com
Check out the accumulated (PIC) wisdom of the ages at:
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.org

2000\04\27@142557 by Mike Morris

flavicon
face
<x-flowed>Does anyone know if the Picstart Plus does this too?

Write-Verify-Set code protect-Verify Code protect

I know it doesn't do ho-lo testing.  :)

- Mike

At 02:11 PM 4/27/2000 -0500, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

</x-flowed>

2000\04\27@143225 by Quitt, Walter

flavicon
face
The PICSTART+ does NOT do HI/LO verify.
Most of the home brew ones don't do it either.
Are there any home brew ones that do?

-Walt

{Original Message removed}

2000\04\27@144849 by Octavio Nogueira

flavicon
face
> The PICSTART+ does NOT do HI/LO verify.
> Most of the home brew ones don't do it either.
> Are there any home brew ones that do?
>
> -Walt

Yes, ProPic 2 Gold.

Friendly Regards

Octavio Nogueira
===================================================
.....nogueiraKILLspamspam.....propic2.com                  ICQ# 19841898
ProPic tools - low cost PIC programmer and emulator
http://www.propic2.com
===================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Quitt, Walter <EraseMEwquittspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTMICROJOIN.COM>
To: <PICLISTspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Production vs. Development programmers


>
> {Original Message removed}

2000\04\27@150930 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
Barry King wrote:
>Dan asked,
>
>> Walter, how do you handle the fact that you cannot verify a
>> code-protected PIC? HI/LO is useless here - or is there a way?
>
>I think what the ProMate does is:
>1) program all but the code protect
>2) Verify Ho and Lo
>3) if it verifies, then program the code protect.
>4) Verify Code protected (Ho and Lo?)
>
>FWIW, I've had one production burn failure in two years, (I assume it
>was truely a bad die), and no PICs that verify but didn't work.
>

I've heard this method before, and was unclear on one point.

Due to the way the programming algorithm works, to do item 3),
don't you have to actually re-program the entire rest of the
chip again, essentially re-do item 1), to get to the code
prot bits. And if so, don't you run the risk of setting one of
the bits originally left as a 1 to a 0, when you do this?

2000\04\27@151725 by Andrew Kunz

flavicon
face
No, you can just increment the address, no need to do a burn cycle.

Andy









Dan Michaels <@spam@oricomKILLspamspamLYNX.SNI.NET> on 04/27/2000 03:08:40 PM

Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <KILLspamPICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>








To:      RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU

cc:      (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES)



Subject: Re: Production vs. Development programmers








Barry King wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I've heard this method before, and was unclear on one point.

Due to the way the programming algorithm works, to do item 3),
don't you have to actually re-program the entire rest of the
chip again, essentially re-do item 1), to get to the code
prot bits. And if so, don't you run the risk of setting one of
the bits originally left as a 1 to a 0, when you do this?

2000\04\27@171454 by w. v. ooijen / f. hanneman

picon face
> Walter, how do you handle the fact that you cannot verify a
> code-protected PIC? HI/LO is useless here - or is there a way?

My programmer ('84 only) first programs everything but the configuration
word, verifies at the extremes, writes the configuration word, and then
(when the protection bits are set) verifies that it can NOT read it back.
That still leaves some
doubt whether the configuration word is programmed OK at the extremes.

Wouter

2000\04\27@171458 by w. v. ooijen / f. hanneman
picon face
> The PICSTART+ does NOT do HI/LO verify.
> Most of the home brew ones don't do it either.
> Are there any home brew ones that do?
Yes, WISP ('84 only)
piclist.org

2000\04\27@234531 by William K. Borsum

flavicon
face
<x-flowed>Is there any way using the newer MPLAB/Picstart Pro's to
1.      program chip with protect off
2.      Verify the chip
3.      turn on the protect
The newer versions don't seem to allow options to just set the protect fuse
(#3) without potentially trying to re-porgram the chip again, whereas I
seem to recall the older (2-4 years ago) did.

Kelly


At 11:28 AM 4/27/00, you wrote:
>The PICSTART+ does NOT do HI/LO verify.
>Most of the home brew ones don't do it either.
>Are there any home brew ones that do?
>
>-Walt
>
>{Original Message removed}

2000\04\28@034842 by Alan B Pearce

face picon face
> how do you handle the fact that you cannot verify a
>code-protected PIC? HI/LO is useless here - or is there a way?

If Hi/Lo Vcc testing was an important issue I would do the code protection as a
separate operation. It would mean being especially careful on the production
floor to be certain that no chips circumvented the protect operation, but this
can be done by marking them with a paint spot or label when going through the
code protect operation.

2000\04\29@160456 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
<x-flowed>At 11:45 AM 4/27/00 -0700, William K. Borsum wrote:
>Is there any way using the newer MPLAB/Picstart Pro's to
>1.      program chip with protect off
>2.      Verify the chip
>3.      turn on the protect
>The newer versions don't seem to allow options to just set the protect fuse
>(#3) without potentially trying to re-porgram the chip again, whereas I
>seem to recall the older (2-4 years ago) did.

I can't answer to points 1 & 2 above (but I always *thought* that was what
they did) but you can program just the fuses by enabling the PS+, then
going to PicStart | Program and then uncheck the boxes for the functions
you DON'T want.

dwayne



Dwayne Reid   <spamBeGonedwaynerspamBeGonespamplanet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 489-3199 voice          (780) 487-6397 fax

Celebrating 16 years of Engineering Innovation (1984 - 2000)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Do NOT send unsolicited commercial email to this email address.
This message neither grants consent to receive unsolicited
commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial email.

</x-flowed>

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000 , 2001 only
- Today
- New search...