Re: Uart receive timeout Interrupt?
2005-11-09 by Guillermo Prandi
Peter, whether or not the Philips utility turns P0.14 low is entirely dependent of your hardware connections! In LPC2138, P0.14 is pin 41. For the LPC2138 to
Messages
Browse messages
Page 124 of 329 · 16407 messages matched
A/D converter: a conversion is never completed
2005-11-09 by Joerg Sommer
Hi, I have a LPC2292 and want to use some analog input channels (Ain0, Ain1, Ain6) to get data from analog sensors. I use this routine to initialize the
Re: Unreliable Secondary JTAG Connection
2005-11-09 by bruce_p1
Tom, What you describe is the norm for secondary JTAG debugging and is well understood. But, some people, including myself, have seen this not work on some
Re: [lpc2000] LPC2138 won't communicate with the Philips flash utility.
2005-11-09 by Peter Homann
Hi Tom, Thanks for the reply. The circuit diagram has P0.14 connected to the com port via a jumper. I ll try holding it low manually as suggested by Zdravko.
Re: [lpc2000] Bit-fields are brain-dead (was Looking to buy compiler)
2005-11-09 by Tom Walsh
... There has been much written about problems with Big-Endian processors and thier data, esp with type conversions. I ll stick to Little-Endian. TomW ... --
Re: [lpc2000] WIGGLER and cable length
2005-11-09 by Tom Walsh
... This was a big expenditure for me and one that was carefully considered. The primary reason was not so much the cost as to the functionality. I ve used
Re: [lpc2000] Bit-fields are brain-dead (was Looking to buy compiler)
2005-11-09 by David Hawkins
... Ok, So I never had a reason to use bit-fields since then :) ... Yes, this was definitely a learning experience - one I am sure others will face - except
Re: Uart receive timeout Interrupt?
2005-11-09 by Zdravko
... It should be ... but maybe it s not. Check it as Guillermo suggested. Try to do it manual.
Re: [lpc2000] Re: Looking to buy compiler
2005-11-09 by Tom Walsh
... I agree with you for the most part. However there are data records that other systems send to me in a packed format that I either write a lot of code to
Re: [lpc2000] Bit-fields are brain-dead (was Looking to buy compiler)
2005-11-09 by Tom Walsh
... A man should know his limiitations , heh. Same with using code. Bitfields are usefull for tearing apart bit-packed fields within data or assembling it.
Re: [lpc2000] WIGGLER and cable length
2005-11-09 by David Hawkins
Hey Tom, ... I ll get work to buy me an Abatron one of these days ... the price of the basic unit from Ultimate Solutions (a US distributor) is about $2800
RE: [lpc2000] Re: Cheap SD Flash File System
2005-11-09 by Paul Curtis
Hi, ... Ok, the challenge: find one that ports easily. I didn t find one, I tried the PRLLC one, but eventually I wrote my own. -- Paul.
Re: [lpc2000] LPC2138 won't communicate with the Philips flash utility.
2005-11-09 by Tom Walsh
... Hold P0.14 low and reset the chip. You are probably have a valid checksum in the Flash and it is jump to that program instead of the bootloader. So, you
Re: [lpc2000] fixed address variable
2005-11-09 by Tom Walsh
... Yeah, like trying to get portability between Intel 8051 vs. Archemedes v3 vs Archemedes v4 compilers: it just ain t gonna happen! Each dev system had its
Re: [lpc2000] WIGGLER and cable length
2005-11-09 by Tom Walsh
... IIRC, sometimes you have to put some caps to ground to keep signal ring / overshoot down with longer cables (simple noise filter). Other times, the caps
Re: [lpc2000] Re: Unreliable Secondary JTAG Connection
2005-11-09 by Tom Walsh
... This is a Rev 0 board that I m building, so far one-of-a-kind (until production). I tie both DEBUG + RTCK low through 10K resistors. Then, I put this in
Re: [lpc2000] Re: Cheap SD Flash File System
2005-11-09 by Tom Walsh
... You are, there really isn t any good FAT layers that are BSD licensed. Most of what the stuff is very simplistic, only read a file, and write to a new
LPC2138 won't communicate with the Philips flash utility.
2005-11-09 by Peter Homann
Hi, Can anyone help me with getting my LPC2138 processor to start talking to the Philips Flash utility again. A previously explained, it appears to have locked
Re: [lpc2000] recommendation for an arm development board?
2005-11-09 by Mike Nelson
ARM7 with ARM/Thumb instruction set and JTAG debug interface is here today. We are already seeing a lot of 8051 and PIC designs migrating to ARM7. ARM Cortex
RE: [lpc2000] Re: Cheap SD Flash File System
2005-11-09 by Joel Winarske
... Good point. The Circuit Cellar version was pretty limited. There were a few others I looked at. I dug through around six different implementations. Most
Re: List of development kits and prices
2005-11-09 by radim100
We have now Dev. Kit which includes JTAG Wiggler on sale for CAD $85 ( approx $72 USD ) at : http://www.micronix.ca/catalog Would you like to add this to your
Re: [lpc2000] PWM & UART at the same time
2005-11-09 by Mike Nelson
I think what Andy is saying is: Hello there, My English is not very good. I will simply use German this time...:) Platform: LPC2129 on the Olimex-LPC-P212X My
Re: [lpc2000] Re: unsigned long versus unsigned int on ARM7
2005-11-09 by Ake Hedman, eurosource
... Yes I noticed them after I replied to your mail. Thanks! Cheers /Ake -- ... Ake Hedman (YAP - Yet Another Programmer) eurosource, Brattbergavägen 17, 820
List of development kits and prices
2005-11-09 by seangra
I don t know if there was one list posted with this, so here is what I have found so far. Feel free to add more if you d like. I ll also post this list at
Re: Cheap SD Flash File System
2005-11-09 by seangra
Call me crazy, but how is $150 for something that you can get for free a good value? There must be dozens of open source FAT drivers that could easily be
Cheap SD Flash File System
2005-11-09 by Joel Winarske
For anyone interested in implementing SD card with FAT12/FAT16 support this is worth a look: http://tinyurl.com/3ozdl -or-
Re: unsigned long versus unsigned int on ARM7
2005-11-09 by seangra
From a standards point of view the only thing that can be guaranteed for the normal basic ordinal types is this: In section 6.1.2.5 the Standard states, There
Re: [lpc2000] Bit-fields are brain-dead (was Looking to buy compiler)
2005-11-09 by David Hawkins
... Yeah, I like that refinement. Dave
Re: [lpc2000] Re: unsigned long versus unsigned int on ARM7
2005-11-09 by David Hawkins
... On my Cygwin install $ find . -name stdint.h -print ./usr/include/mingw/stdint.h ./usr/include/stdint.h there s a couple. Do the same on your install. Dave
Re: recommendation for an arm development board?
2005-11-09 by radim100
Hi, You can have a look on our boards at: http://www.micronix.ca/catalog . Thes are LPC2138/48 systems based and work together with several add on and
RE: [lpc2000] Bit-fields are brain-dead (was Looking to buy compiler)
2005-11-09 by Dan Beadle
Charles, I know you have said this before, but I disagree, IF the bit fields are supplied by the compiler vendor. Both IAR and KEIL provide bit field
Re: [lpc2000] Bit-fields are brain-dead (was Looking to buy compiler)
2005-11-09 by Charles Manning
... I would refine this: Never use them for anything that does hardware accesses or has hardware dependencies. I use them quite a bit for packing data into
Re: recommendation for an arm development board?
2005-11-09 by bruce_p1
Here s a good LPC2106 dev. board/module. Lots of examples that work on ImageCraft s low cost ICCARM IDE: http://www.micromint.com/products/bolt.htm ...
Re: [lpc2000] fixed address variable
2005-11-09 by Charles Manning
... There is a difference. When you do something like: unsigned int dd _at_ 0x810000; often the linker will check for overlaps etc. Depends on the
Re: [lpc2000] Re: unsigned long versus unsigned int on ARM7
2005-11-09 by Ake Hedman, eurosource
... This is a *very* good suggestion. During the years I have used many different constructs but as you write it is probably time now to go for the C99 types
Re: [lpc2000] WIGGLER and cable length
2005-11-09 by Ake Hedman, eurosource
... Thanks Tom appreciate that. My lab bench could really live without a computer also on it ;-) so I hope it will be possible to have a meter of cable at
Re: [lpc2000] Re: New to microprocessor
2005-11-09 by David Hawkins
... Well, according the PDF in the zip file refers to 9835 and 9735, and the data sheet link says that a 9835 is a PCI UART + parallel port, i.e., seems like
Re: [lpc2000] Re: Looking to buy compiler
2005-11-09 by Robert Adsett
... The compiler is doing exactly what you told it to. You ve just (re)discovered that the behaviour of the construct you ve used is completely non-portable.
Re: Unreliable Secondary JTAG Connection
2005-11-09 by bruce_p1
I was searching through this group to see if anyone else was having an unreliable secondary JTAG connection issue with the LPC210x chips; guess I m not alone.
Re: [lpc2000] Re: unsigned long versus unsigned int on ARM7
2005-11-09 by David Hawkins
... I use to get the C99 types; int32_t, uint32_t, etc. If the compiler doesn t have a stdint.h, then write one. There are already too many versions
Re: [lpc2000] Bit-fields are brain-dead (was Looking to buy compiler)
2005-11-09 by David Hawkins
... Just to add to the never use bit-fields advice , here s an article I found a while ago (where the author calls bit-fields brain-dead) ... A C Test: The
RE: [lpc2000] unsigned long versus unsigned int on ARM7
2005-11-09 by Paul Curtis
Klaus, ... Actually, it is compiler defined. ... int is supposed to mirror the natural word width of the machine, yes. ... Correct. ... No, short is required
Re: [lpc2000] fixed address variable
2005-11-09 by Richard
While we have not done exactly that type of extensions to our compiler, usually requests like this come down to being able to declare multiple vars at
RE: [lpc2000] unsigned long versus unsigned int on ARM7
2005-11-09 by Paul Curtis
Hi, ... No difference on many 32-bit compilers. ... That is wrong. The C standard requires that the following equality and inequalities hold: 1 = sizeof(char)
Re: unsigned long versus unsigned int on ARM7
2005-11-09 by rtstofer
... go on for ... support ... aware of ... comp.std.c or ... I believe the discussion was related to C99 as it appeared to change the definition from previous
Re: [lpc2000] fixed address variable
2005-11-09 by Tom Walsh
... FWIW, I wonder why Keil added an extension to their C compiler? I ve been using int * dd = ((unsigned int *)0x81000000) for many many years. Not only
Re: [lpc2000] unsigned long versus unsigned int on ARM7
2005-11-09 by Richard
First of all, re: standards, the old C86/C89/ISO90 Standard will go on for a quite a while. Most (embedded) compilers have not moved to fully support C99 and
Re: [lpc2000] fixed address variable
2005-11-09 by Tom Walsh
... unsigned int * dd = ((unsigned int *)0x81000000); *dd = -- Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant http://openhardware.net,
Re: [lpc2000] unsigned long versus unsigned int on ARM7
2005-11-09 by Jim Parziale
That s why it s a good idea to define your types based on sizes: S8 - signed 8-bit U8 - unsigned 8-bit S16 - signed 16-bit U16 - unsigned 16-bit etc. This
RE: [lpc2000] unsigned long versus unsigned int on ARM7
2005-11-09 by Gromann, Klaus
The difference between long and int is machine dependend. int depends from the processor type, that means int is 16 bit on a 16 bit machine and 32 bit on a 32