Lpc2000

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "brendanmurphy37"
<brendanmurphy37@...> wrote:

> - why should I break the most basic rule of design and rely on 
> something that in turn relies on undocumented and unsupported 
> features from a manufacturer?

Stick to the boot supplied boot loader if you only wish to rely on
what Philips publishes.

As for support, I do not want engage in politics.

> - what do I do when I'm in production and Philips supply a batch of 
> parts that have some change in them that renders your boot-loader or 
> some feature of it ineffective?

Stick to the original boot loaeder then.  My tools have never replaced
any code without first checking what was there in the first place.

> I assume that one of the reasons for Philips implementing the boot-
> loader the way it is is that it gives them the flexibility to change 
> the hardware without changing the documented interface to it.

There you go making assumptions.  I do not want to go into this again.

I asked for expression of interest.  If you are not interested perhaps
you are better off staying out of this thread.

Jaya