Searching \ for 'Programming 16C84 vs 16F8' 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: 'Programming 16C84 vs 16F8'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Programming 16C84 vs 16F8'
1997\04\27@105545 by KIMMO TOIVANEN

picon face
Artikkelissa <spam_OUT01BC50E3.1FBFE800TakeThisOuTspamsupercat.pr.mcs.net>> .....supercatKILLspamspam@spam@MCS.NET (Reply-To: PICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU) (KSP MAIL kirjoitti:

KM> Today, for the second time, I tried programming a 16F84 in my self-b
KM> programmer at work (normally I use a BP Microsystems unit, but on th
KM> occasion my self-built one was hooked up).  Unfortunately, my progra
KM> doesn't seem to work on any non-blank 16F84's (it worked fine for re
KM> ramming 16C84's).  My suspicion is that Microchip has changed the op
KM> tion of the "program word" instruction so that it no longer does an
KM> before write.

The problem might be that the code protection has changed. Instead of
one bit (#4) there are ten bits (13-4) protecting code. Your programmer
software isn't aware of that, and that's why it can't erase F-part.

Though, if you haven't protected parts (intentionally or un-) there
is something else going wrong. Remember, F's CP is the same way
than C's, the PWRTE is vice versa.

One solution would be going back to C-parts, but F's do have more
precious RAM, so...


Best wishes,
Kimmo


'Programming 16C84 vs 16F8'
1997\05\09@114737 by KIMMO TOIVANEN
picon face
Artikkelissa <.....01BC50E3.1FBFE800KILLspamspam.....supercat.pr.mcs.net>> EraseMEsupercatspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTMCS.NET (Reply-To: PICLISTspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU) (KSP MAIL kirjoitti:

KM> Today, for the second time, I tried programming a 16F84 in my self-b
KM> programmer at work (normally I use a BP Microsystems unit, but on th
KM> occasion my self-built one was hooked up).  Unfortunately, my progra
KM> doesn't seem to work on any non-blank 16F84's (it worked fine for re
KM> ramming 16C84's).  My suspicion is that Microchip has changed the op
KM> tion of the "program word" instruction so that it no longer does an
KM> before write.

The problem might be that the code protection has changed. Instead of
one bit (#4) there are ten bits (13-4) protecting code. Your programmer
software isn't aware of that, and that's why it can't erase F-part.

Though, if you haven't protected parts (intentionally or un-) there
is something else going wrong. Remember, F's CP is the same way
than C's, the PWRTE is vice versa.

One solution would be going back to C-parts, but F's do have more
precious RAM, so...


Best wishes,
Kimmo

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1997 , 1998 only
- Today
- New search...