Searching \ for 'is programming spec wrong?' 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: 'is programming spec wrong?'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'is programming spec wrong?'
2002\07\30@030905 by Anbunathan R

flavicon
face
Hi,
Using ICSP, i have developed programmer for PIC 16F84. The problem is if i try to unprotect the protected pic controller i am facing some problem. I am following the sequence as below
        1. Load Configure ( command - 00) with data 3FF0
        2. Increment to 2007
        3. command 01
        4. command 07
        5. Begin program 08 with 10 ms delay
        6. command 01
        7. command 07
But why i can n't defeat code protection. Any body can please give me the correct sequence of commands to unprotect the chip.

With Regards,
Anbu

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spam_OUTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\30@041135 by Wouter van Ooijen

picon face
> Using ICSP, i have developed programmer for PIC 16F84. The
> problem is if i try to unprotect the protected pic controller
> i am facing some problem. I am following the sequence as below
>          1. Load Configure ( command - 00) with data 3FF0
>          2. Increment to 2007
>          3. command 01
>          4. command 07
>          5. Begin program 08 with 10 ms delay
>          6. command 01
>          7. command 07
>  But why i can n't defeat code protection. Any body can
> please give me the correct sequence of commands to unprotect the chip.

The only source for the secret unlock/erase sequence is of course the
PIClist. At least that's where I have got my info from. But it looks
suspiciously like what you do, except '3FFF' instead of '3FF0' (typo?),
and an added 'erase data' sequence.

      -- remove protection
      target_send_6( 0x00 )
      target_send_14( 0x3F, 0xFF )
      for 7 loop
         target_send_6( 0x06 )
      end loop
      target_send_6( 0x01 )
      target_send_6( 0x07 )
      target_send_6( 0x08 )
      target_wait_ms( 10 )
      target_send_6( 0x01 )
      target_send_6( 0x07 )

      -- erase data
      target_reset
      target_send_6( 0x03 )
      target_send_14( 0x00, 0xFF )
      target_send_6( 0x08 )
      target_wait_ms( 10 )
      target_send_6( 0x0B )
      target_send_6( 0x08 )
      target_wait_ms( 10 )

Wouter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\30@050929 by Kevin Blain

flavicon
face
Hmm. Let's see.

"Code Protection"

What do you think the purpose of "code protection" is exactly?

In order to change the program memory contents, you have to erase the
device, by doing an "erase all".


Regards, Kevin


> {Original Message removed}

2002\07\30@052605 by Anbunathan R

flavicon
face
No.This is not correct answer. Thanks for your reply

-----Original Message-----
From:   Kevin Blain
Sent:   Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:37 PM
To:     PICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject:        Re: is programming spec wrong?

Hmm. Let's see.

"Code Protection"

What do you think the purpose of "code protection" is exactly?

In order to change the program memory contents, you have to erase the
device, by doing an "erase all".


Regards, Kevin


{Quote hidden}

piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\30@052824 by Anbunathan R

flavicon
face
Thanks Wouter. Today evening i will implement and get back if i have any concerns.

With Regards,
Anbu

{Original Message removed}

2002\07\30@053229 by john

flavicon
face
by my reckoning, the only way to get to a code protected chip is to erase it
entirely... other wise whats the point of code protection if you can just
remove it with a config bit

hehehehe

On Tuesday 30 July 2002 11:27 am, you wrote:
> Thanks Wouter. Today evening i will implement and get back if i have any
> concerns.
>
> With Regards,
> Anbu
>
> {Original Message removed}

2002\07\30@054453 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>by my reckoning, the only way to get to a code protected chip
>is to erase it entirely... other wise whats the point of code
>protection if you can just remove it with a config bit

Hmm, after reading the previous two posts to yours, I looked at the
programming spec for the 16F8xx series, and it specifically says that if the
code protect is on, then the bulk erase command does NOT change the program
memory, but there is a special series of commands to carry out in this case
to do the erase. It would appear the 16F84 is the same, and this is what
Wouter has given him.

Seems a bit like caveat emptor.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\30@085158 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 12:27:25PM +0530, Anbunathan R wrote:
> Hi,
> Using ICSP, i have developed programmer for PIC 16F84.
> With Regards,
> Anbu

You know I'm waiting for the day when I see this quote:

"Using ICSP, I have developed a programmer for the PIC 16F628/16F872/18F452..."

Then I will feel that my mission is closer to being done.

All three chips listed above are much better than the 16F84. The first two
cost less and offer more, the 18F452 cost more (About $2 US more in quantity)
but the advantages are unbelievable!

The upshot is that the 16F84 is a dinosaur in today's PIC world. There's one
and only one reason to still use it, and it you don't already know what it is
then you should sit it on the shelf.

The reason I'm putting this out (again for regular list readers...) is that
the erase sequence for the 16F628 is a bit different than the one Anbu listed
above.

Lastly I presume that you're doing this as a learning exercise Anbu. There
are many fine programmers and programming software available for loading code
into the abovementioned chips. I discuss a couple and why the 16F84 is
obsolete on my TLVP page:

http://www.finitesite.com/d3jsys

Hope this helps,

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\30@095045 by Chris Wheeler

flavicon
face
From: "Byron A Jeff" <TakeThisOuTbyronEraseMEspamspam_OUTCC.GATECH.EDU>
> All three chips listed above are much better than the 16F84. The first two
> cost less and offer more, the 18F452 cost more (About $2 US more in
quantity)
> but the advantages are unbelievable!
>
> Lastly I presume that you're doing this as a learning exercise Anbu. There
> are many fine programmers and programming software available for loading
code
> into the abovementioned chips. I discuss a couple and why the 16F84 is
> obsolete on my TLVP page:
>
> http://www.finitesite.com/d3jsys
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> BAJ

Dammit Byron, I wish I'd read your page about a week ago.  Looks like I
should trash the two spare 16F84a's that I just bought, find somewhere to
buy 16F628's, build a programmer and start learning from there instead.

--
CW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\30@175429 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Byron A Jeff wrote:

>The upshot is that the 16F84 is a dinosaur in today's PIC world. There's one
>and only one reason to still use it, and it you don't already know what it is
>then you should sit it on the shelf.

Why don't you understand that there are many plaecs on this planet where
you can't buy the new PIC's in ones, and need to buy sticks of them from a
rep, which is not an option for some hobbyists and some projects ?

The 16F84 will be obsolete when I will no longer be able to buy it off the
shelf in ones. Although I do not necessarily qualify as a poor hobbyist.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspam.....mitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\30@200026 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> The 16F84 will be obsolete when I will no longer be able to buy it
> off the shelf in ones. Although I do not necessarily qualify as a
> poor hobbyist.

I disagree.  It's possible to buy 386s off the shelf.  If you try to
tell me that those aren't obsolete, you've got some catching up to
do.  I can also find LS TTL off the shelf, in ones;  anyone who uses
that by choice (unless there is some really powerful reason that I'm
missing) needs an update in dated technology.

You haven't taken into account that it's possible that some people
already can't buy the 84 off the shelf in ones where they are.  By
your definition, that would make them obsolete.

Besides, the real determining factor is when Microchip decides to
note in their datasheet "Do not use this product in new designs!"

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPUcohwVk8xtQuK+BEQLDcACfYwRPfh8ls0VOtErV4tY8iheGyOoAn3c8
ZQqZEmaPODrteLCDPZW6n8fo
=+Dxn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\30@225832 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 08:10:15PM +0300, Peter L. Peres wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
> >The upshot is that the 16F84 is a dinosaur in today's PIC world. There's one
> >and only one reason to still use it, and it you don't already know what it is
> >then you should sit it on the shelf.
>
> Why don't you understand that there are many plaecs on this planet where
> you can't buy the new PIC's in ones, and need to buy sticks of them from a
> rep, which is not an option for some hobbyists and some projects ?

Because I still believe that it's a lack of exposure, not a lack of resources.
Anyone who does a cursory lookup of information on the PIC will be flooded
with information about the 16F84. Most of the beginning tutorials and web
pages about PICs still talk about the 16F84. Just a real quick look on
Google for '16F628 tutorial' yielded 2 pages of hits. The same for '16F84
tutorial' yields 30.

I'd be real interested in hearing about lack of availablity for small
quantities of newer PIC parts. The PICLIST could certainly serve as a resouce
in terms of getting parts to folks in out of the way place.

BTW I can't pick up PIC parts off the shelf anywhere. They have always been
strictly a mail order item for me. I'm just wondering how we can facilitate
getting parts to those who need it.


>
> The 16F84 will be obsolete when I will no longer be able to buy it off the
> shelf in ones. Although I do not necessarily qualify as a poor hobbyist.

Perfectly resonable. It's clear to me though that you're making an informed
choice. However the phrase "I'm just getting started with PICs and I'm
writing my own programming software for the 16F84." points to an uninfomed
novice user that needs more information. All in all their PIC experience will
be better if they start out with the better, faster, cheaper part.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\31@013234 by Anbunathan R

flavicon
face
Hi,

The sequence given by wouter also not working. I tried to remove code protection. I could n't. Whereas PIC burner is doing well. Can any body can solve this problem by giving actual running command sequence which will defeat code protection without fail.

With Regards,
Anbu

{Original Message removed}

2002\07\31@020536 by Tony Nixon

flavicon
picon face
Anbunathan R wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The sequence given by wouter also not working. I tried to remove code protection. I could n't. Whereas PIC burner is doing well. Can any body can solve this problem by giving actual running command sequence which will defeat code protection without fail.


This is what I use and it works ok. You should be able to follow it
through

EraseAll        call VCC_On
       call VPPx_On
         call Del12mS          ; WAIT
         call Del12mS
       call Write14FG          ; point to config memory

; Increment Address 7 times so that PC points to Configuration word

         movlw 7h
         movwf WordCount

FAddEx    call IncAddr
         decfsz WordCount
         goto FAddEx
;
; ----------------------------
; CODE PROTECT ERASE PROCEDURE
; ----------------------------
;
CPerase   movlw b'00000001'             ; COMMAND 1
         call Command14
         call Delay100

         movlw b'00000111'             ; COMMAND 7
         call Command14
         call Delay100

         movlw b'00001000'             ; BEGIN PROGRAM
         call Command14
       call Del12mS            ; WAIT
         call Del12mS

         movlw b'00000001'             ; COMMAND 1
         call Command14
         call Delay100

         movlw b'00000111'             ; COMMAND 7
         call Command14
         call Delay100
       call VPP_Off
         call Del12mS          ; WAIT

; CLEAR PROGRAM MEMORY

       call VPPx_On
         call Del12mS          ; WAIT

       movlw b'00000010'               ; Load Data command
         call Command14
       movlw b'01111111'               ; send all 1's
       movwf WriteDataH
       movlw b'11111110'
       movwf WriteDataL
       call Write14

         movlw b'00001000'             ; BEGIN PROGRAM
         call Command14
       call Del12mS            ; WAIT
         call Del12mS

         movlw b'00001001'             ; ERASE PROGRAM
         call Command14
         movlw b'00001000'             ; BEGIN PROGRAM
         call Command14
       call Del12mS            ; WAIT
         call Del12mS

       call VPP_Off
         call Del12mS          ; WAIT

; CLEAR EEPROM MEMORY

       call VPPx_On
         call Del12mS          ; WAIT

       movlw b'00000011'               ; Load EEP Data command
         call Command14
       movlw b'01111111'               ; send all 1's
       movwf WriteDataH
       movlw b'11111110'
       movwf WriteDataL
       call Write14

       call CPerase

ExErase call VPP_Off
       call VCC_Off








--
Best regards

Tony

mICros
http://www.bubblesoftonline.com
RemoveMEsalesspam_OUTspamKILLspambubblesoftonline.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\07\31@071337 by Anbunathan R

flavicon
face
Hi,
The following things are not clear in Tony's patch.

1. Where CPerase ends.(ie where is RTS)
2. Whether "Call CPerase " follows the previous lines of code or it is used in different place.

Please clarify the above concerns.

With Regards,
Anbu


Anbunathan R wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The sequence given by wouter also not working. I tried to remove code protection. I could n't. Whereas PIC burner is doing well. Can any body can solve this problem by giving actual running command sequence which will defeat code protection without fail.


This is what I use and it works ok. You should be able to follow it
through

EraseAll        call VCC_On
       call VPPx_On
         call Del12mS          ; WAIT
         call Del12mS
       call Write14FG          ; point to config memory

; Increment Address 7 times so that PC points to Configuration word

         movlw 7h
         movwf WordCount

FAddEx    call IncAddr
         decfsz WordCount
         goto FAddEx
;
; ----------------------------
; CODE PROTECT ERASE PROCEDURE
; ----------------------------
;
CPerase   movlw b'00000001'             ; COMMAND 1
         call Command14
         call Delay100

         movlw b'00000111'             ; COMMAND 7
         call Command14
         call Delay100

         movlw b'00001000'             ; BEGIN PROGRAM
         call Command14
       call Del12mS            ; WAIT
         call Del12mS

         movlw b'00000001'             ; COMMAND 1
         call Command14
         call Delay100

         movlw b'00000111'             ; COMMAND 7
         call Command14
         call Delay100
       call VPP_Off
         call Del12mS          ; WAIT

; CLEAR PROGRAM MEMORY

       call VPPx_On
         call Del12mS          ; WAIT

       movlw b'00000010'               ; Load Data command
         call Command14
       movlw b'01111111'               ; send all 1's
       movwf WriteDataH
       movlw b'11111110'
       movwf WriteDataL
       call Write14

         movlw b'00001000'             ; BEGIN PROGRAM
         call Command14
       call Del12mS            ; WAIT
         call Del12mS

         movlw b'00001001'             ; ERASE PROGRAM
         call Command14
         movlw b'00001000'             ; BEGIN PROGRAM
         call Command14
       call Del12mS            ; WAIT
         call Del12mS

       call VPP_Off
         call Del12mS          ; WAIT

; CLEAR EEPROM MEMORY

       call VPPx_On
         call Del12mS          ; WAIT

       movlw b'00000011'               ; Load EEP Data command
         call Command14
       movlw b'01111111'               ; send all 1's
       movwf WriteDataH
       movlw b'11111110'
       movwf WriteDataL
       call Write14

       call CPerase

ExErase call VPP_Off
       call VCC_Off








--
Best regards

Tony

mICros
http://www.bubblesoftonline.com
RemoveMEsalesTakeThisOuTspamspambubblesoftonline.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\07\31@170211 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Brendan Moran wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>> The 16F84 will be obsolete when I will no longer be able to buy it
>> off the shelf in ones. Although I do not necessarily qualify as a
>> poor hobbyist.
>
>I disagree.  It's possible to buy 386s off the shelf.  If you try to
>tell me that those aren't obsolete, you've got some catching up to
>do.  I can also find LS TTL off the shelf, in ones;  anyone who uses
>that by choice (unless there is some really powerful reason that I'm
>missing) needs an update in dated technology.
>
>You haven't taken into account that it's possible that some people
>already can't buy the 84 off the shelf in ones where they are.  By
>your definition, that would make them obsolete.

Please don't put words in my mouth. It only means what I said: for *ME*
*HERE* they will be obsolete when I can no longer buy them  and/or when I
have a choice in the same price range.

>Besides, the real determining factor is when Microchip decides to
>note in their datasheet "Do not use this product in new designs!"

If you live far enough from Arizona, USA, then the determining factor is
when your contact tells you stocks are running low.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2002 , 2003 only
- Today
- New search...