Searching \ for 'Programmer drawings' 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: 'Programmer drawings'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Programmer drawings'
1999\03\17@105111 by Andreas Magnusson

picon face
Hello!

I wonder if anybody knew where (on the net) I can find drawings on a PIC
programmer that can program PIC16C74 and stuff like that... I have seen
houndreds of 16F84 programmers but where are the programmers that can
program other PIC MCU:s


/Andreas Magnusson

1999\03\17@111444 by jamesp

picon face
 Andreas,

 I believe if you look on the Dontronics web site, you'll find
 a programmer by the name of P16PRO or something similar.  It
 will program all the serially programmed PIC's I believe. The
 software is there to drive it too.  I believe this is where I
 seen this programmer.  If you can't find it, let me know and
 I'll look into where I found it.  Hope this is what you want.

                                       Regards,

                                         Jim






{Quote hidden}

1999\03\17@114537 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
>
> Hello!
>
> I wonder if anybody knew where (on the net) I can find drawings on a PIC
> programmer that can program PIC16C74 and stuff like that... I have seen
> houndreds of 16F84 programmers but where are the programmers that can
> program other PIC MCU:s

It's due to the same catch-22 we've been discussing in other threads. The
reason that 16F84 programmers are popular, easy, and cheap are because the
core memory is EEPROM based, which is programmed in a self timed fashion.

All the other PICs are EPROM based with an algorithm that requires 100
microsecond (uS) programming pulses. The problem is that most PCs can't
easily be pinned down to delays that short.

The best way to do this IMHO is to use a PIC to program other PICs. A 16F84
can trivially handle the timing and interface chores for programming any
serial interface programmed PICs, which includes all the 14-bit core series
and the 12CXXX series.

But except for the PicPro programmer design no one has taken this approach.
And the PicPro does too much, simulator, programmer, target too.

It's something on my list of things to do, but I don't know when I'll get
around to it.

BAJ
>
>
> /Andreas Magnusson
>

1999\03\17@123655 by Scott Dattalo

face
flavicon
face
Andreas Magnusson wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I wonder if anybody knew where (on the net) I can find drawings on a PIC
> programmer that can program PIC16C74 and stuff like that... I have seen
> houndreds of 16F84 programmers but where are the programmers that can
> program other PIC MCU:s
>
> /Andreas Magnusson

Microchip has released the schematic and cod for the Picstart 16B. You
can get it here:

http://www.interstice.com/~sdattalo/gnupic/ps16b.html

Scott

1999\03\17@123900 by Octavio Nogueira

flavicon
face
You can take a look at ProPic 2 and soon ProPic 2000
will be released.

                         /"\
Friendly Regards          \ /
                          X  ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
Octavio Nogueira          / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL
===================================================
spam_OUTnogueiraTakeThisOuTspampropic2.com                  ICQ# 19841898
>From the creator of ProPic,ProPic 2 now much better
New ProPic 2  homepage:      http://www.propic2.com
PIC Programmer for Windows with down to earth price
===================================================
-----Mensagem original-----
De: Andreas Magnusson <.....andreas.mKILLspamspam@spam@TELIA.COM>
Para: PICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU <.....PICLISTKILLspamspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Data: Quarta-feira, Maro 17, 1999 01:03
Assunto: Programmer drawings


{Quote hidden}

1999\03\17@181006 by Tony Nixon

flavicon
picon face
PicNPro from the web site below has all schematics PCB designs etc, as
well as the programmer source code used in the project. With this
information, you can write your own interface if you like, ie DOS, MAC,
UNIX etc.

It also has a real world port interface for both simulators and
expansion pins to allow programming of 'other' types of chips.

I'm just putting the finishing touches on an In Circuit Programmer mini
board that will allow direct connection to the programmer to 'burn and
run' 16F84s on the fly for further experimentation. It will plug into
any solderless bread board and should only cost a few dollars to get
going. This also takes advantage of one of the 16C74's A2D inputs to
allow you to play around with a POT and read it's position into the
simulator.

This daughter board also includes space for 16C5X programming sockets
and a section to connect the real world interface to a solderless
breadboard. The board can be cut into four sections to take advantage of
these features.

I am using standard 40 pin sockets on all boards so that a single 40 pin
ZIF socket can be plugged into them to program all the chips that the
programmer can handle.

I am hoping, for a limited time, to offer these experimenters boards
free to new buyers of PicNPoke, although the designs will be presented
as part of the software for those that want to roll thier own.

By the way, the simulator now has interactive single instruction
tutorials that are linked to the 'Binary Classroom' so you only need to
click on a button to watch an instruction of your choice execute.

--
Best regards

Tony

PicNPoke - Multimedia 16F84 Beginners PIC Tools.

http://www.picnpoke.com
Email EraseMEpicnpokespam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTcdi.com.au

1999\03\17@220951 by Ken Pergola

flavicon
face
The Micro-bRISC Device Programmer took this approach way back in 1994! And
it still exists today.
It won honorable mention in the 6th annual Circuit Cellar Design contest
and was a feature article in the January 1996 issue of Circuit Cellar INK.

The Micro-bRISC Device Programmer has an on-board PIC running at 20 MHz for
programming PICs -- that in conjunction with the parallel port contributes
to its super fast programming times of RISC-based PICs -- hence the name
(and pun) Micro-bRISC.

A 8K word PIC (i.e., PIC16C77)  takes only 8 seconds for the complete
programming cycle (blank check, program, and verify).

It's one of the fastest development programmers around. The freeware version
handles the PIC16C84 and a few other midrange parts. The schematic and
freeware firmware is posted at the web address below.

There's a collection of Micro-bRISC files, GIFs, and Adobe PDF files at
http://www.vgernet.net/kenetic. Take a peek. There's DOS and Win95/98 software
available.


Best regards,


Ken Pergola




-----Original Message-----
From: Byron A Jeff <byronspamspam_OUTCC.GATECH.EDU>
To: @spam@PICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU <KILLspamPICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Programmer drawings


{Quote hidden}

1999\03\22@071551 by paulb

flavicon
face
Byron A Jeff wrote:

> All the other PICs are EPROM based with an algorithm that requires 100
> microsecond (uS) programming pulses.  The problem is that most PCs
> can't easily be pinned down to delays that short.

 Just a little nit-pick, sorry!  The PC is *eminently* capable of doing
this.  A certain variety (not the same as "most") *popular PC operating
system* cannot be pinned down to delays that short with better than 98%
reliability.

 I don't know if I ever posted this as a result of my tests.  I *can*
get this level of reliability on a machine running W95, and with about
4µs jitter (i.e., about 99% of pulses are within 4µs, but the occasional
one is stretched as much as a whole clock tick).  A crude retriggerable
4µs monostable (charge pump) could however be used to overcome this.

 This machine is running an active serial port as well (packet Radio)
which may account for much of the unreliability.  On a quiet machine, it
may work far better again.  Since I am using the System Timer, it is
speed-independent, and may in fact work flwlessly on a Pentium II.

 Pure supposition.
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

1999\03\22@104836 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
>
> Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
> > All the other PICs are EPROM based with an algorithm that requires 100
> > microsecond (uS) programming pulses.  The problem is that most PCs
> > can't easily be pinned down to delays that short.
>
>   Just a little nit-pick, sorry!  The PC is *eminently* capable of doing
> this.  A certain variety (not the same as "most") *popular PC operating
> system* cannot be pinned down to delays that short with better than 98%
> reliability.

Sorry Paul, you're correct. It's just that the two can be seen as a unit
from the applications standpoint. It doesn't matter which part of the system
causes the problem, just the fact that the problem is caused.

>
>   I don't know if I ever posted this as a result of my tests.  I *can*
> get this level of reliability on a machine running W95, and with about
> 4us jitter (i.e., about 99% of pulses are within 4us, but the occasio=
> nal
> one is stretched as much as a whole clock tick).  A crude retriggerable
> 4us monostable (charge pump) could however be used to overcome this.

I guess I'm arguing that instead of fighting the PC/OS combo that it's easier
to program a 16F84 which can easily handle the timing requirements.

BAJ

1999\03\22@155814 by Marc

flavicon
face
> Sorry Paul, you're correct. It's just that the two can be seen as a unit
> from the applications standpoint. It doesn't matter which part of the system
> causes the problem, just the fact that the problem is caused.

Being a programmer myself, I can't see why it shouldn't be possible to generate
100us delays on a PC _with_ Win running. I'm not familiar with the DOS/Win
API (I came from another platform and use the PC architecture as a user mostly).
But I'm certainly convinced that even a Pentium CPU has some DISABLE instruction
,
which keeps interrupts from being answered. And, being compatible back even to
before dinosaurs gave us their visit, still every PC has that 18ms system tick.

These 18ms=18000us are presented in 65536 chops of just approx 0.28us.

Why don't you (the reader) just go ahead and make sure that the timer is
programmed for 18ms ticks, and then read it at the beginning of your timing
interval, and eventually poll it until it has advanced by whatever you
require (read: is greater than your end_time MOD 65536, or smaller than
start_time MOD 65536).

Task switches will make you miss some multiple of 18ms from time to time,
but that doesn't matter - timing will slow down, not speed up.

Using that jittery timing, you can put the PIC into programming mode, set
the address pointer and transfer the data to program.

When it comes to applying the programming pulse (with both min _and_ max
spec), simply DISABLE all interrupts, pulse the parallel port to start the
prog cycle, use the timer in the very same fashion (but you will now not
miss the interval end due to task switches or interrupt service),
eventually end the prog cycle, and finally reenable the interrupts.

The system will stay responsive, at least as far as "responsive" goes when
it appears in one sentence with "Win". During any randomly chosen 101us
window there is a chance of interrupts to occur. On other (far more
responsive) platforms I was used to see 250us max int duration restrictions.

And, each and every programming pulse is protected from streching beyond the
100us limit.

1999\03\22@161333 by Ralph Stickley

flavicon
face
> And, each and every programming pulse is protected from streching beyond the
> 100us limit.

Don't forget about those pesky SMI (System Management Interrupts - thermal
management, etc.) - on some motherboards, these are not disabled with the
standard disable() function call.  Try to disable as much of this in the BIOS as
possible. Otherwise, find out which 'chip set' is being used on the motherboard,
get the data sheet and program the appropriate register to turn them off...chant
to the chipset makers...wave a wand...howl at the moon and cross your fingers
:-)

1999\03\24@055014 by Jim Robertson

flavicon
face
At 21:42 22/03/99 +0100, you wrote:


>
>Being a programmer myself, I can't see why it shouldn't be possible to
generate
>100us delays on a PC _with_ Win running. I'm not familiar with the DOS/Win
>API (I came from another platform and use the PC architecture as a user
mostly).
>But I'm certainly convinced that even a Pentium CPU has some DISABLE
instruction,
>which keeps interrupts from being answered. And, being compatible back
even to
>before dinosaurs gave us their visit, still every PC has that 18ms system
tick.
{Quote hidden}

I would be happy to be corrected with the following. I am not claim expert
knowledge here, If someone has more concrete knowledge Iwould be interested
in what they have to say. Here goes...


Pentiums running in protected mode give the OS the ability to block and
redirect I/O and interrupt enable/disable functions.

You cannot be guaranteed read/write access to the timer chip. It has been
"virtualized" by the windows OS. Also the 18mS pulse is now "averaged" over
time and not always 18mS.

Bill Gates has us by the short and curlies.


While it may be possible with the right tools and knowledge to work around
these problems the point is that so far nobody has claimed to have done it
and done it in a REPEATABLE way. Firmware designs offer guaranteed correct
programming timings. I don't think there is a high level of "comfort" amongst
printer port programmer users that their software offers the same.

I would suggest the "doubt" factor is responsible for the large number of
people want to add firmware to the front end of there Tait style programmers.
Theories posted on the piclist are not going to change that. We went though
this debate years ago. No one has made a point of addressing the doubts over
timing since.

I not suggesting here that the timing problems themselves have or haven't
been rectified, rather it is people's perception that haven't change.

Can anyone address this?

Jim


________________________________________
Email: RemoveMEnewfoundTakeThisOuTspampipeline.com.au
http://www.pipeline.com.au/users/newfound
WARP-3 SALE now on. $48USD with world delivery.
MPLAB compatible PIC programmers and firmware
upgrades for many programmers.
________________________________________

1999\03\24@063520 by Marc

flavicon
face
> > And, each and every programming pulse is protected from streching beyond the
> > 100us limit.
>
> Don't forget about those pesky SMI (System Management Interrupts - thermal
> management, etc.) - on some motherboards, these are not disabled with the
> standard disable() function call.

Doesn't the Pentium CPU have a disable instruction itself??? How would the OS
be able to do "atomic" functionality (eg: for resource allocation) else????
How would an interrupt protect itself from being triggered over and over
and corrupting megabytes of memory with pushing status to stack over and over??

Don't tell me it hasn't.

We're not talking about ms or seconds of disabled interrupts, just 100us - this
should be excuse enough to use lowest level and not walk through OS API.

1999\03\24@100257 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
At 21:54 03/24/99 +1100, Jim Robertson wrote:
>You cannot be guaranteed read/write access to the timer chip. It has been
>"virtualized" by the windows OS. Also the 18mS pulse is now "averaged" over
>time and not always 18mS.

at least the clock portion of the timer chip is not accessibe to direct i/o
(w/o using a device driver) in win98. i haven't tried to mess with the
timer, but i would assume that it's the same.

ge

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999 , 2000 only
- Today
- New search...