gnupic: Re: [gnupic] more on first picprog attempt
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] more on first picprog attempt
From:
Robert Pearce ####@####.####
Date:
18 Jun 2006 12:51:33 +0100
Message-Id: <9nxqzJBEpRlEFw2u@jonah.huneausware.local>
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Maxim Wexler ####@####.#### wrote :
>
>So why didn't erase option work after saying that it did? Is this a problem
>with the PG2 programmer? The port? I tried the code with _CONFIG LVP_OFF
>(above) and ON(below):
>
Because in common with most software that tries to suggest hints for
what might cause a problem, picprog is guessing wildly and without
taking account of whether you've already tried its suggested solution.
>
>This time it doesn't contradict itself vis-a-vis code protection...but it
>still don't work:(.
>
No, this time it singularly failed to do anything. However, the change
to disable LVP in the CONFIG does not take effect until AFTER the config
word is programmed, which should be after the whole chip is programmed,
and you're not getting nearly that far. So something else must have been
different, too.
Incidentally, if the programmer does try to program the config word
first then it _will_ fail to program the code memory. This is so
reliable on 14-bit PICs that I can't believe picprog is that badly
broken.
>I just checked the pins on the chip in the programmer in the static state,
>ie, while not in use but connected to COM1. MCLRnot, RB3, VSS have -5.6V on
>them, for example. VDD is at gnd potential. Is this correct?
>
Nothing should have a negative voltage, but since VSS is the ground pin
I think you've just measured it wrongly. So what were you using as your
ground reference? MCLR and RB3 both at VSS is correct for the idle
state, but that's not a particularly useful piece of information.
--
Rob Pearce http://www.bdt-home.demon.co.uk
The contents of this | What makes you think graduate school is supposed to
message are purely | be satisfying?
my opinion. Don't | -- Erica Jong, "Fear of Flying"
believe a word. |
