Post by thread:Using the Picstart Plus to program other micro's?

------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: Self <FS7/WTERREB> To: PICLIST Subject: Using the Picstart Plus to program other micro's? Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:07:40 GMT+2 I bought myself one of the new Picstart Plus programmers and is very impressed with. This is almost a universal programmer in the true sense of the word. Or is it? What I specifically like about the programmer is that they put DG411 analog switches on almost all the pins, making it possible to cater for almost any kind of pin configuration. The control is done by a PIC17C42 (I think) which is connected via the RS232 serial port to your computer. This brings me to an interesting thought... It really looks as if this hardware should make it possible to also program other devices on this programmer if one just replace the existing controlling micro with another specially programmed one. I would particularly like it if I can program the Atmel 89C20xx and 89Cxx devices. Has anyone else out there ever tried to do this? Is the schematics for the Microchip Picstart Plus available anyware? It shouldn't be too difficult to reverse engineer it, but I really don't want to do that if someone else has already done this and I can just buy a pre-programmed 17C42 to replace my existing one and wolla - My picstart can now also program the Atmel devices! It would be interesting to hear what the programmer experts like Jim and Antti think of this.... <hint> <hint> :) Rgds Werner -- Werner Terreblanche Tel +27 21 7102251 Fax +27 21 721278 spam_OUTwterrebTakeThisOuTplessey.co.za (work) OR .....wernerKILLspam@spam@aztec.co.za (home)

{Quote hidden}>This brings me to an interesting thought... It really looks as if >this hardware should make it possible to also program other devices >on this programmer if one just replace the existing controlling micro >with another specially programmed one. I would particularly like it if I can > program >the Atmel 89C20xx and 89Cxx devices. > >Has anyone else out there ever tried to do this? Is the schematics >for the Microchip Picstart Plus available anyware? It shouldn't be >too difficult to reverse engineer it, but I really don't want to do >that if someone else has already done this and I can just buy a >pre-programmed 17C42 to replace my existing one and wolla - My >picstart can now also program the Atmel devices! > >It would be interesting to hear what the programmer experts like Jim >and Antti think of this.... <hint> <hint> :) > >Rgds > >Werner Hi Werner and all others well I can say what I think (or did at least): it would be possible (and I had plans to do so) to replace the firmware chips on bla-bla programmers with one single warranty: "This is the final firmware upgrade you ever need for this hardware" it means that the firmware would be to have full access over all the hardware futures existing - swithces, drivers so on, and the upper level software (on the host) would know how to handle the hardware (via the the firmware), being able to use all available resources of the programmer in question. Another tool would take a programmer pin-capabilities description file to help to make a pin-remap adapter for all those devices the programmer does not support by default. If that above would be made, every programmer equipped with the "final firmware(tm)" Would be able (at least teoretically) to program all devices that require equal number or less programmable pins and voltages as the programmer hardware actually has. YES Picstart would program Atmel, and lotsa other devices it was not designed to program. I have been working on this concept and will continue, but as I dont know who I could get any profit of that work this is pretty much in background. well whats done is a base level specification for PINAPI - PIN (driver) Application Programming Interface. There are few programs written on top of that specification and they are pretty much succesful. At least several companies are distributing commercial programmers with my free software, (not paying and even without sending me a notice) I still dont mind. And still will keep that programming software (and hopefully coming soon new release) free. (I have made no profit whatsorwhatever) I had plans to make a new level spefication for programmers with firmware chips, but its really not so easy. If I should do that, ie replacement firmware chips for various programmers, then only if I will very sure that the upgrade will be last firmware upgrade needed. Until that I am pretty much amused to see what others are doing and thinking. SORRY for this long mail to the list, but I was thinking "What Werner is doing?" just befor I did see "I wander what Antti thinks?" in Werners mail to list. This is not PICLIST now I did make a Atmel2051 burner as simple as it can be, and wrote a software for that, but didnt release. Anyone interested? (AT89C2051 DIY programmer hw costs <10USD ) Grreetings Antti ------------------------------------------------------ -- Silicon Studio Ltd. -- -- infoKILLspamsistudio.com http://www.sistudio.com -- ------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:53:42 +1000 From: Robert Lunn <robertspam_OUTHUEY.RDD.NECA.NEC.COM.AU> Subject: Re: Using the Picstart Plus to program other micro's? {Quote hidden}>>If that above would be made, every programmer equipped with the >>"final firmware(tm)" Would be able (at least teoretically) to program >>all devices that require equal number or less programmable pins and >>voltages as the programmer hardware actually has. > Of course, a great many commercial programmers have been > released over the years that use this concept. Just have a > lot of pins that you can set to a number of voltages, and then > use a script file to drive the sequence in which particular > pins are set to particular voltages. That what I thought was how the Picstart Plus programmer works as well. Because Mchip claimed that this programmer will even be able to program future realeases of microcontrollers not even on the drawing table yet. So there must be some sort of script file that gets driven in aspecific sequence. And if one knows how that script file works, you can probable write your own drivers for it. Does anybody know how Mchip plans to allow for future microcontrollers on their current Picstart Plus programmer? What I mean is... will it be by means of firmware (17C42) replacement, or will it just be required to get a software update of the driver program? Rgds Werner s -- Werner Terreblanche Tel +27 21 7102251 Fax +27 21 721278 @spam@wterrebKILLspamplessey.co.za (work) OR KILLspamwernerKILLspamaztec.co.za (home)

At 05:12 PM 9/12/96 GMT+2, you wrote: {Quote hidden}>------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- >From: Self <FS7/WTERREB> >To: PICLIST >Subject: Using the Picstart Plus to program other micro's? >Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:07:40 GMT+2 > >I bought myself one of the new Picstart Plus programmers and is very >impressed with. This is almost a universal programmer in the true >sense of the word. Or is it? > >What I specifically like about the programmer is that they put DG411 >analog switches on almost all the pins, making it possible to cater >for almost any kind of pin configuration. The control is done by a >PIC17C42 (I think) which is connected via the RS232 serial port to >your computer. > >This brings me to an interesting thought... It really looks as if >this hardware should make it possible to also program other devices >on this programmer if one just replace the existing controlling micro >with another specially programmed one. I would particularly like it if I can > program >the Atmel 89C20xx and 89Cxx devices. > >Has anyone else out there ever tried to do this? Is the schematics >for the Microchip Picstart Plus available anyware? It shouldn't be >too difficult to reverse engineer it, but I really don't want to do >that if someone else has already done this and I can just buy a >pre-programmed 17C42 to replace my existing one and wolla - My >picstart can now also program the Atmel devices! > >It would be interesting to hear what the programmer experts like Jim >and Antti think of this.... <hint> <hint> :) > >Rgds > >Werner > Werner, (I hope you meant me when you said "Jim the programmer expert." I'm not being presumptuous am I?) :-) I have not seen a PS + so I can only make general comments. First, I would be surprised if the firmware chip is a 17C42 as it would take a bit of effort to fit all the code into just 2k. Going by previous PS 16 efforts I doubt the Uchip employees would put this effort in. It is certainly possible to fit the the required code in to a 17C42 but somehow I suspect the chip is a 17C43. Again, I am guessing, but I think you might be exaggrating when you say there are DG411 switches on "almost all the pins." Exactly how many are there and how many are connected to *unique* pins. Given that you need two i/o lines for each switch to mean anything, there would have to be plenty of additional i/o support, a 40-pin PIC could not possibly handle it all. Exactly how much additional i/o support is there? I think if you look harder at how and where the DG411s are connected, you might be disillusioned somewhat, Right? Never-the-less, it is possible to change the firmware and get the PS+ to program lots of different devices. However, as for doing it onboard, I have very strong doubts. I just don't think that you will be able to program much more than PIC parts and maybe a few other small devices like SEEPROMS, and KEELOC parts etc. I realize the PS+ programs the 17C4x devices and these devices require 25 meaningful i/o lines. This would be just be enough to program some smaller parallel eproms in theory. However, when you factor in the additional multiplexing signals required, this is becoming very complicated indeed. After all, the 25 i/o lines aren't all in the right places are they? Now, to Antti's comments. I have had a discussion with Antti about his pin driver idea. He loves it, I don't. At the very best, a universal programmer based on a pin driver concept would take at least 5 time longer to program than specifically targeted code. Also, as Robert Lunn correctly pointed out, there is still no guarantee that you can cover every possibility. In practice, "final firmware" is a dangerous claim indeed. The microchip Promate allows new firmware to be downloaded. This is a far better way to guarantee future suitability. Anyway, hope I have given you have enough food for thought on the matter. Regards Jim

At 09:30 AM 9/13/96 GMT+2, you wrote: {Quote hidden}>Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:53:42 +1000 >From: Robert Lunn <RemoveMErobertTakeThisOuTHUEY.RDD.NECA.NEC.COM.AU> >Subject: Re: Using the Picstart Plus to program other micro's? > >>>If that above would be made, every programmer equipped with the >>>"final firmware(tm)" Would be able (at least teoretically) to program >>>all devices that require equal number or less programmable pins and >>>voltages as the programmer hardware actually has. > >> Of course, a great many commercial programmers have been >> released over the years that use this concept. Just have a >> lot of pins that you can set to a number of voltages, and then >> use a script file to drive the sequence in which particular >> pins are set to particular voltages. > >That what I thought was how the Picstart Plus programmer works as >well. Because Mchip claimed that this programmer will even be able >to program future realeases of microcontrollers not even on the >drawing table yet. So there must be some sort of script file that >gets driven in aspecific sequence. And if one knows how that script >file works, you can probable write your own drivers for it. > >Does anybody know how Mchip plans to allow for future >microcontrollers on their current Picstart Plus programmer? What I >mean is... will it be by means of firmware (17C42) replacement, or >will it just be required to get a software update of the driver >program? There may, or may not need to be firmware replacements, at this stage not even microchip would know that for certain. What we do know is that the algorithms AND PIC pinouts are becaming very much standard. This is why microchip say it will program future pics, it is not because they are using pin drivers. Regards Jim

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:49:31 -0500 From: Jim Robertson <spamBeGonenewfoundspamBeGoneNE.COM.AU> Subject: Re: Using the Picstart Plus to program other micro's? At 05:12 PM 9/12/96 GMT+2, you wrote: {Quote hidden}>------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- >From: Self <FS7/WTERREB> >To: PICLIST >Subject: Using the Picstart Plus to program other micro's? >Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:07:40 GMT+2 > >I bought myself one of the new Picstart Plus programmers and is very >impressed with. This is almost a universal programmer in the true >sense of the word. Or is it? > >What I specifically like about the programmer is that they put DG411 >analog switches on almost all the pins, making it possible to cater >for almost any kind of pin configuration. The control is done by a >PIC17C42 (I think) which is connected via the RS232 serial port to >your computer. > >This brings me to an interesting thought... It really looks as if >this hardware should make it possible to also program other devices >on this programmer if one just replace the existing controlling micro >with another specially programmed one. I would particularly like it >if I can > program >the Atmel 89C20xx and 89Cxx devices. > >Has anyone else out there ever tried to do this? Is the schematics >for the Microchip Picstart Plus available anyware? It shouldn't be >too difficult to reverse engineer it, but I really don't want to do >that if someone else has already done this and I can just buy a >pre-programmed 17C42 to replace my existing one and wolla - My >picstart can now also program the Atmel devices! > >It would be interesting to hear what the programmer experts like Jim >and Antti think of this.... <hint> <hint> :) > >Rgds > >Werner > Werner, >(I hope you meant me when you said "Jim the programmer expert." I'm >not being presumptuous am I?) :-) Yes, I meant you. :) >I have not seen a PS + so I can only make general comments. First, I >would be surprised if the firmware chip is a 17C42 as it would take a >bit of effort to fit all the code into just 2k. Going by previous PS >16 efforts I doubt the Uchip employees would put this effort in. It is >certainly possible to fit the the required code in to a 17C42 but >somehow I suspect the chip is a 17C43. Could be a 17C43 or a 42. I didn't want to take label of the chip to look what was written underneath it, so I just assumed it was a 17C42. >Again, I am guessing, but I think you might be exaggrating when you >say there are DG411 switches on "almost all the pins." Exactly how >many are there and how many are connected to *unique* pins. Given that >you need two i/o lines for each switch to mean anything, there would >have to be plenty of additional i/o support, a 40-pin PIC could not >possibly handle it all. Exactly how much additional i/o support is >there? I see your point. There are six DG411 chips on the board and each DG411 contains four switches, so you were right in saying that not all of the pins are covered, but it probably still means that enough of them are. Anyway, the I/O support is handled by some74HC164 shift register and I don't quite understand why you said that two i/o lines are needed for each switch. >I think if you look harder at how and where the DG411s are connected, >you might be disillusioned somewhat, Right? I'll have use a multimeter and ring out what switches are connected to what pins before I can comment. >Never-the-less, it is possible to change the firmware and get the PS+ >to program lots of different devices. However, as for doing it >onboard, I have very strong doubts. I just don't think that you will >be able to program much more than PIC parts and maybe a few other >small devices like SEEPROMS, and KEELOC parts etc. Yeah, the one big problem is possible that the crystal ossiclator is on different pins for some of these other microcontrollers. >I realize the PS+ programs the 17C4x devices and these devices require >25 meaningful i/o lines. This would be just be enough to program some >smaller parallel eproms in theory. However, when you factor in the >additional multiplexing signals required, this is becoming very >complicated indeed. After all, the 25 i/o lines aren't all in the >right places are they? Probably not. >I have had a discussion with Antti about his pin driver idea. He loves >it, I don't. At the very best, a universal programmer based on a pin >driver concept would take at least 5 time longer to program than >specifically targeted code. Also, as Robert Lunn correctly pointed >out, there is still no guarantee that you can cover every possibility. >In practice, "final firmware" is a dangerous claim indeed. Unless they also allow for the firmware to be downloaded, but I could not see any eeproms or any other memory device that could hold the firmware externally to the controller micro. >The microchip Promate allows new firmware to be downloaded. This is a >far better way to guarantee future suitability. > >Anyway, hope I have given you have enough food for thought on the >matter. Yeah, I presume its not really worth the effort for me alone to try and fiddle with changing the firmware. It would be far cheaper and less of an effort to just buy or build another programmer for the other devices that I also want to program. I guess I was sort of hoping to get an easy answer for this, but it seems its not as simple as it looks. Thank you for your comments, Jim. Regards Werner. -- Werner Terreblanche Tel +27 21 7102251 Fax +27 21 721278 TakeThisOuTwterrebEraseMEspam_OUTplessey.co.za (work) OR RemoveMEwernerTakeThisOuTaztec.co.za (home)

>I see your point. There are six DG411 chips on the board and each >DG411 contains four switches, so you were right in saying that not >all of the pins are covered, but it probably still means that enough >of them are. Anyway, the I/O support is handled by some74HC164 >shift register and I don't quite understand why you said that two i/o lines >are needed for each switch. Well, not all of them use two I/O lines but some do, one to control the gate and the other to act as the digital I/O they requires isolation depending on the device pinout. Lets do a count. There are four unique pinouts as far as the programmer is concerned: 1 - 18-pin devices (all) 2 - 28/40-pin 16Cxx 3 - 28-pin 16C5x 4 - 8-pin 5 - 40-pin 17C4x devices We need to switch GND, Vdd, and Vpp. To do this we have already we have used 15 of the 24 switches. The remaining will be used to switch the digital I/O to the same 15-pins. From this one can conclude the PS+ is designed for programming PICs and cannot be configured as a universal programmer. Anyway, to program standard eproms, a 6V Vdd is required. This is not available on the PS+. > >>I think if you look harder at how and where the DG411s are connected, >>you might be disillusioned somewhat, Right? > >I'll have use a multimeter and ring out what switches are connected >to what pins before I can comment. And I'll get by will educated guesses! :-) {Quote hidden}>> >>Anyway, hope I have given you have enough food for thought on the >>matter. > >Yeah, I presume its not really worth the effort for me alone to try >and fiddle with changing the firmware. It would be far cheaper and >less of an effort to just buy or build another programmer for the >other devices that I also want to program. I guess I was sort of >hoping to get an easy answer for this, but it seems its not as simple >as it looks. > >Thank you for your comments, Jim. My pleasure Werner but sorry to be a kill-joy. Regards Jim