Lpc2000

Please don't bother IAR with this problem. I am 99.9% sure it is NOT 
their problem. Use any tool that uses POP instructions. When the 
address of the pop instruction matches the SP address, except for 
the most significant byte, you should see this problem.

Again this has only been seen on the LPC213x family. If you have 
concerns about this, see it for yourself. The project and 
screenshots have been posted in the "files" section under "stack 
issue". I will let you know when I get any information from Philips.


--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "keithgw_strider" 
<keithgw_strider@y...> wrote:
> I sent a copy of my project to Mike Nelson at IAR. He was able to 
> duplicate the problem using the latest tools on the LPC213x but he 
> could NOT duplicated it on the LPC2106. I don't see how it is a 
> tools issue, although if your tools never generates a POP 
> instruction, you won't see this problem.
> 
> Mike modified my project so the addresses match again when 
compiled 
> with the latest tools. He then sent a copy of the project and 
screen 
> shots to Will Dawson of Philips, Mark Moran of IAR and myself. If 
> anyone wants a copy of the project and screen shots, they will be 
> posted in the the files section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "unity0724" <unity0724@y...> wrote:
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > Help!!  I'm using lots of LPC2124, but not LPC213x yet.
> > Somebody pls.. pls.. confirm problem related to LPC213x only.
> > (something like due to moving port I/O to local bus and add
> > address comparator so that prefetch queue not flushed 
> > => for high speed I/O port toggling.   Or whats ever)
> > 
> > Many Thanks and Best Regards   /MH
> > 
> > 
> > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "lp2000c" <lp2000c@e...> wrote:
> > > WOW!!
> > > 
> > > Has anyone else reproduced this?
> > > 
> > > keithgw_strider:
> > > 
> > > Have you found out anything more?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "dsidlauskas1" 
> <dsidlauskas@w...> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > Martin and All,
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry for the wrong message number. Message 7898 fully 
> describes 
> > the
> > > > problem.
> > > > 
> > > > In brief:
> > > > "
> > > > It appears anytime the PC and SP are equal except for the 
high 
> > byte 
> > > of
> > > > the address, and you run a POP {R4} instruction, the chip 
will 
> > pop 
> > > two
> > > > times off the stack thus loading R4 with the wrong value and 
> > messing
> > > > up your stack.
> > > > 
> > > > for example:
> > > > 
> > > > 0x000001F4 POP {R4} With SP = 0x400001F4.
> > > > 
> > > > R4 will be loaded with the contents of 0x400001F8.
> > > > "
> > > > 
> > > > Dave
> > > > 
> > > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Maurer" 
> > <mailingliste@c...> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Can you add a short summary of the problem, what the 
problem 
> > is ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > 
> > > > >          Martin
> > > > > 
> > > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > > > From: "lpc2100_fan" <lpc2100_fan@y...>
> > > > > To: <lpc2000@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 8:12 AM
> > > > > Subject: [lpc2000] Re: Philip Aps. - Stack Issue
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Dave,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Your pointer was a little misleading (7923) but I found 
> the 
> > > issue
> > > > > > described in 7898.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > My question to the original poster (I guess Keith) is 
> > whether 
> > > the MAM
> > > > > > was enabled? If not please do so.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Did enabling the MAM change anything?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "dsidlauskas1" 
> > > <dsidlauskas@w...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> Message 7923 describes a bizarre stack problem on the 
> 213x. 
> > If
> > > > this is
> > > > > >> correct, it would seem to seriously limit the 
usefulness 
> of 
> > > this
> > > > part.
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> What say you Philips Ap's?
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> Dave
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >