Lpc2000

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

> I think you seem to miss my point: that if you find a vendor produces
> devices that lockup or do not function properly (like the UART in
> LPC), the costs of trying to find the bugs and working around (if 
this
> is possible) are more than moving on to a processor with peripherals
> that have a good track record.
> 

You've now made the same point yet again, and still don't seem to 
understand the one I was making.

If I know there is a problem with a device, I can deal with it by 
designing around it, or as you suggest move onto another device.

Watchdog's are designed (amongst other things) to recover from  
unknown or unpredicted problems. By definition, I can't be aware of 
these beforehand to allow me to "move on" as you put it.

There is a risk that some peripheral in the device has the previously 
undiscovered characteristic of getting locked into a state 
unrecoverable by software. Hence my preference for a hardware-like 
reset into a known condition when a watchdog expires. That's all I was 
and am saying. 

There's no need to repeat your own point again: five times is more 
than enough!

Brendan