gnupic: Thread: Re: [gnupic] real vs simulated for 16f88

Maxim Wexler wrote:

> However in gpsim only RA0 to RA5 become active outputs. Why not RA6 and 
> RA7?
> Furthermore, RA5, according to the PDF, can never be an output and doubles
> as MCLR.

I took a look at this and you're correct. gpsim has two bugs here! I'll
fix these shortly. (If it is going to take a while, then I'll let you
know. I'm currently in the middle of developing an I2C host controller
module. This has turned out to be more difficult than I had expected.)


> Also another questions arises: How do I activate it safely if the code
> expects to see an output where I plan to insert a reset button to start the
> thing?

Probably the best alternative (at the moment) is to type 'Reset' at the
command line. This will reset the chip.

Scott

Scott Dattalo wrote:
> Maxim Wexler wrote:
> 
> 
>>However in gpsim only RA0 to RA5 become active outputs. Why not RA6 and 
>>RA7?
>>Furthermore, RA5, according to the PDF, can never be an output and doubles
>>as MCLR.
> 
> 
> I took a look at this and you're correct. gpsim has two bugs here! I'll
> fix these shortly. 

I was wrong, there was only one bug here (and it's been fixed). RA5 now
is an input only pin. RA6 and RA7 are enabled by setting the config bits
properly. For example, add this line to your file:

        __CONFIG  _CONFIG1, _INTRC_IO

This tells gpsim that the internal RC oscillator is used and thus RA6
and RA7 are available for general purpose use.

Scott

Thanks Scott,

Meanwhile I adapted the file to use PORTB and it worked fine in gpsim but
not in hardware. When I ran pkp -v(erify) got this:

memory+EEPROM+ID+fuses+error.

Have any idea what this is about? Google came up empty.

Maxim

On 12/20/06, Maxim Wexler ####@####.#### wrote:
> Thanks Scott,
>
> Meanwhile I adapted the file to use PORTB and it worked fine in gpsim but
> not in hardware. When I ran pkp -v(erify) got this:
>
> memory+EEPROM+ID+fuses+error.
>
> Have any idea what this is about? Google came up empty.

The last thing you want to do when starting with PIC is to debug your
programmer. I believe PICkit 2 is a much better choice than TLVP even though
some people would really like to make their own programmer. PICkit 2
is well supported by pk2/pyk/piklab under Linux.

Device support of PICkit 2 under Windows:
http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=1406&dDocName=en027813
Next version of pk2-3.xx will support many more PICs under Linux
by supporting the version 2.xx firmware of PICKit 2.

By the way, PICkit 2 is now on sale. You can get the bare programmer
for US$28 and the bundle (with 44pin 16F917 board or 20pin 16F690 board)
for US$40.
http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=2519&param=en028609&redirects=express

Regards,
Xiaofan

Thanks Xiaofan,

Googling around I came across pickit-devel. In a post from last March you
said the 16f88 wasn't yest supported. Is that still true? I just got in an
order for 10 of them. The pic of the pickit board doesn't look like it can
take a 18 PDIP.

The reason I got the '88s  was I thought they were supposed to be the
replacement for the all around '84.  Was that a mistake too?

Maxim

On Wed December 20 2006 08:40, Maxim Wexler wrote:
>
> Googling around I came across pickit-devel. In a post from last March you
> said the 16f88 wasn't yest supported. Is that still true?

Pickit2 supports the 16F88.

>The pic of the pickit board doesn't look like it can
> take a 18 PDIP.
>
The Low Pin Count Demo board doesn't--you need the 18-Pin Demo Board.

Jeff

> >
> The Low Pin Count Demo board doesn't--you need the 18-Pin Demo Board.
>

I've looked all over for a Pickit2 w/18 pin header and can't find it. Is it
difficult to adapt something? Is it worthwhile?

Maxim

On Fri December 22 2006 18:02, Maxim Wexler wrote:
> > The Low Pin Count Demo board doesn't--you need the 18-Pin Demo Board.
>
> I've looked all over for a Pickit2 w/18 pin header and can't find it. Is it
> difficult to adapt something? Is it worthwhile?
>
It's not just worthwhile, it's necessary if you're going to program 18 pin 
devices.

After taking a closer look at the boards, I see that the LPC demo board is 
part number 04-01831 and the 18-pin demo board is part number 04-0xxxx, so 
I'm not sure if this has been officially released by Microchip. Dan, can you 
help him out as to how to obtain one?

Jeff

On 12/22/06, Jeff ####@####.#### wrote:
> On Fri December 22 2006 18:02, Maxim Wexler wrote:
> > > The Low Pin Count Demo board doesn't--you need the 18-Pin Demo Board.
> >
> > I've looked all over for a Pickit2 w/18 pin header and can't find it. Is it
> > difficult to adapt something? Is it worthwhile?
> >
> It's not just worthwhile, it's necessary if you're going to program 18 pin
> devices.
>

It's not hard to build your own programming adapter from a socket and
single-row header and five wires.

Better yet, design the application to use ICSP.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
-- 
You think that it is a secret, but it never has been one.
  - fortune cookie

On 12/23/06, Maxim Wexler ####@####.#### wrote:
> > >
> > The Low Pin Count Demo board doesn't--you need the 18-Pin Demo Board.
>
> I've looked all over for a Pickit2 w/18 pin header and can't find it. Is it
> difficult to adapt something? Is it worthwhile?

http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=211926
AC162049 with a simple modification will make an idea adapter for
DIP packages PICs.