Lpc2000

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Guillermo Prandi" 
<yahoo.messenger@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Jayasooriah.
> I too would like to hear about your findings.
> If you'd just post your findings in cold objective words instead 
of 
> making misterious announces I doubt anybody would have anything to 
> criticize. Anyway, if they do, it's their problem. Please just 
post 
> what you've found (avoiding offending wording like "completely 
> broken", "piece of crap" and things like that) and any workarounds 
> you may have developed for it and I'll be really GLAD to read 
about 
> it.
> 
> Guille

I'll second that, as I'm sure everyone would.

Our own experience of the boot loader is that it's fine for 
development and initial production programming of the parts (though 
not without its quirks). If we had a need to provide in-service 
programming, we'd probably implement it as an application feature. 
That way, the feature can be customised to the particular 
application and environment (e.g. implementing download recovery if 
the code is being loaded through an unreliable comms link). I can't 
see why you'd need to replace the simple boot loader that's there, 
though. If there is a reason to do it, I'd like to hear about it.

As an aside, surely Philip's ongoing support of this forum is 
evidence of their encouragement of people pointing out issues with 
the parts rather than discouraging it? My own experience has been 
that they have been very grateful to people pointing out any issues 
with the parts or documentation. 

Brendan