Lpc2000

I've renamed the group to LPC2000, in line with the Philips change of
name for the family.

Leon

Leon

Thanks ! I've taken good advantage of your
www.lpc2100.com site to find development bds. I was
first alerted to this ARM7 derivative via CC ink. (PS
if you have a circuit cellar subscription you can see
this month my Coolrunner-II xilinx article...)

I need device driver programmers for the LPC2106.

Any leads appreciated.

Russ Lindgren


--- leon_heller <leon_heller@...> wrote:
> I've renamed the group to LPC2000, in line with the
> Philips change of
> name for the family.
> 
> Leon
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

At 11:03 AM 2/19/04 -0800, you wrote:
>I need device driver programmers for the LPC2106.
It doesn't require anything very special since it programs through the 
serial port.

I was thinking of making a board to connect a PC serial port to a 0.1" 
header to allow programming w/o placing serial circuitry on the 
board.  Anyone interested?

Robert

" 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself.  There are always restrictions,
be they legal, genetic, or physical.  If you don't believe me, try to
chew a radio signal. "

                         Kelvin Throop, III

Thursday, February 19, 2004, 8:09:49 PM, si napisal:
> At 11:03 AM 2/19/04 -0800, you wrote:
>>I need device driver programmers for the LPC2106.
> It doesn't require anything very special since it programs through the
> serial port.

> I was thinking of making a board to connect a PC serial port to a 0.1"
> header to allow programming w/o placing serial circuitry on the 
> board.  Anyone interested?
You can use BSL programer for msp430. It works fine for me.

http://llg.cubic.org/dmx43/bsl.png

lp,
Pero

>You can use BSL programer for msp430. It works fine for me.
>
>http://llg.cubic.org/dmx43/bsl.png
>
>lp,
>Pero


What software do you use together with the BSL programmer circuit
to program the part?

I think the original post was for SW programmers on LPC2000, as in people
:-)
Not sure though.

----- Original Message -----
From: "entell0" <ediril@...>
To: <lpc2000@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 6:56 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [lpc2000] Help me find LPC2000 programmers


>
>
> >You can use BSL programer for msp430. It works fine for me.
> >
> >http://llg.cubic.org/dmx43/bsl.png
> >
> >lp,
> >Pero
>
>
> What software do you use together with the BSL programmer circuit
> to program the part?
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>   a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/
>
>   b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>   c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>

At 07:02 AM 2/20/04 +1100, you wrote:
>I think the original post was for SW programmers on LPC2000, as in people
>:-)
>Not sure though.

It did say device driver programmers but you may be right.  If so, Pero 
please contact me off list.

Robert

" 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself.  There are always restrictions,
be they legal, genetic, or physical.  If you don't believe me, try to
chew a radio signal. "

                         Kelvin Throop, III

Robert Adsett wrote:
> At 11:03 AM 2/19/04 -0800, you wrote:
> 
>>I need device driver programmers for the LPC2106.
> 
> It doesn't require anything very special since it programs through the 
> serial port.
> 
> I was thinking of making a board to connect a PC serial port to a 0.1" 
> header to allow programming w/o placing serial circuitry on the 
> board.  Anyone interested?

I'm fiddling with some designs for such a thing myself - I can give you 
my Eagle files if you want; it would be a shame for our header pinouts 
to be unnecessarily incompatible :-) My 0.1" header design brings out 
TxD, RxD, 3.3v, 0v, /RST, and P0.14.

On the topic of Eagle, where's a good discussion forum for it? I want to 
modify the behaviour of the autorouter a bit, but tweaking all the 
optimisation costs just seems to make things... worse :-)

> 
> Robert
> 

ABS

At 09:05 PM 2/19/04 +0000, you wrote:
Alaric,

>I'm fiddling with some designs for such a thing myself - I can give you
>my Eagle files if you want; it would be a shame for our header pinouts
>to be unnecessarily incompatible :-) My 0.1" header design brings out
>TxD, RxD, 3.3v, 0v, /RST, and P0.14.

That would be nice.  Please do.  I agree on making a consistent header.  I 
was thinking the same set as you on a two row header with 8 pins to allow 
for keying.  That leaves one unused pin (in addition to the keying 
location).  The two rows allows standard ribbon cable and 8 pins is still 
smaller than most rs232 level convertors.


>On the topic of Eagle, where's a good discussion forum for it? I want to
>modify the behaviour of the autorouter a bit, but tweaking all the
>optimisation costs just seems to make things... worse :-)

Have you tried the newsgroups on Cadsoft's site?  There is also a file 
there that provides 'improved' autorouter parameters for 3.5. I haven't 
heard whether they were used for V4 or not.  They are better but they take 
more passes.  I haven't tried them on V4 myself.

Robert

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Alaric B Snell" <alaric@...>
To: <lpc2000@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: [lpc2000] Help me find LPC2000 programmers


> Robert Adsett wrote:
> > At 11:03 AM 2/19/04 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> >>I need device driver programmers for the LPC2106.
> >
> > It doesn't require anything very special since it programs through the
> > serial port.
> >
> > I was thinking of making a board to connect a PC serial port to a 0.1"
> > header to allow programming w/o placing serial circuitry on the
> > board.  Anyone interested?
>
> I'm fiddling with some designs for such a thing myself - I can give you
> my Eagle files if you want; it would be a shame for our header pinouts
> to be unnecessarily incompatible :-) My 0.1" header design brings out
> TxD, RxD, 3.3v, 0v, /RST, and P0.14.
>
> On the topic of Eagle, where's a good discussion forum for it? I want to
> modify the behaviour of the autorouter a bit, but tweaking all the
> optimisation costs just seems to make things... worse :-)

Most autorouters are a waste of time, especially the Eagle one. Electra is
pretty good, and works with Eagle. I've been using an evaluation copy with
Pulsonix, and it does quite a good job. It looks like it will prove to be a
viable alternative to Cadence Specctra, at a fraction of the price.

Leon
--
Leon Heller, G1HSM
Email: aqzf13@...
My low-cost Philips LPC210x ARM development system:
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller/lpc2104.html

Robert Adsett wrote:
> At 09:05 PM 2/19/04 +0000, you wrote:
> Alaric,
> 
> 
>>I'm fiddling with some designs for such a thing myself - I can give you
>>my Eagle files if you want; it would be a shame for our header pinouts
>>to be unnecessarily incompatible :-) My 0.1" header design brings out
>>TxD, RxD, 3.3v, 0v, /RST, and P0.14.
> 
> 
> That would be nice.  Please do.  I agree on making a consistent header.  I 
> was thinking the same set as you on a two row header with 8 pins to allow 
> for keying.  That leaves one unused pin (in addition to the keying 
> location).  The two rows allows standard ribbon cable and 8 pins is still 
> smaller than most rs232 level convertors.
> 

I was thinking (viewed from above):

3.3v          0v
/RST          RD
P0.14         TD
3.3v          0v

I'll dig out my design (it's on the other machine) and put it online 
somewhere when I get a moment. It was just a standard Maxim level 
shifter (A 3232? IIRC...), a copy of that header design (so a straight 
ribbon cable connects it to the LPC board), a 9-pin RS232 port, a button 
for reset, a switch to enable the reset line from the control lines on 
the RS232, and a three-position switch for P0.14 - RUN, PROGRAM, REMOTE 
(with the latter option connecting it to the lines from the RS232). The 
reason for all the switching (rather than just jumpers) is that, at 
least on my setup, terminal emulators annoyingly pull /RST and P0.14 
low, showing me a nice Christmas tree effect as all the GPIO lines 
connected to LEDs float high...

> Have you tried the newsgroups on Cadsoft's site? 

Ah! I'd not seen that, but knowing it was there made me see it. Duh. 
Thanks ;-)

> 
> Robert
> 

ABS

At 09:45 PM 2/19/04 +0000, you wrote:
>I was thinking (viewed from above):
>
>3.3v          0v
>/RST          RD
>P0.14         TD
>3.3v          0v

What about
n/c     0V
/RST     RxD
P0.14    TxD
3.3V      -

where - is either a snipped pin or a plugged hole for keying (so we don't 
let the smoke out of something when we try to hook it up backwards).  and 
n/c is just not assigned to anything.

I like to protect myself against my own clumsiness :)

Robert

" 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself.  There are always restrictions,
be they legal, genetic, or physical.  If you don't believe me, try to
chew a radio signal. "

                         Kelvin Throop, III

Robert Adsett wrote:
> At 09:45 PM 2/19/04 +0000, you wrote:
> 
>>I was thinking (viewed from above):
>>
>>3.3v          0v
>>/RST          RD
>>P0.14         TD
>>3.3v          0v
> 
> 
> What about
> n/c     0V
> /RST     RxD
> P0.14    TxD
> 3.3V      -
> 
> where - is either a snipped pin or a plugged hole for keying (so we don't 
> let the smoke out of something when we try to hook it up backwards).  and 
> n/c is just not assigned to anything.
> 
> I like to protect myself against my own clumsiness :)

I agree heartily! Let's go for it. I'll put a note on the Wiki.

> 
> Robert

ABS

>>You can use BSL programer for msp430. It works fine for me.
>>
>>http://llg.cubic.org/dmx43/bsl.png
>>
>>lp,
>>Pero


> What software do you use together with the BSL programmer circuit
> to program the part?

LPC210x ISP from philips (use google)

> Most autorouters are a waste of time, especially the Eagle one. Electra is
> pretty good, and works with Eagle. I've been using an evaluation copy with
> Pulsonix, and it does quite a good job. It looks like it will prove to be
a
> viable alternative to Cadence Specctra, at a fraction of the price.
>
> Leon

I've been using Protel for yonks, after they bought Neurorouter the
autorouter
became very impressive.
I've had it route boards that normally took 20 hours route in 40 seconds.
Watching it "push'n shove" is really fun :-)
You can customise it to buggery, even freely assign agressor nets, and work
out
impedance characteristics, crosstalk etc etc.
Nowadays Protel has gone insane with their pricing but I still use Client 98
and 99SE.
The polygon pour is really great too, perfect for RF - even at 900 MHz and
2.4 GHz

-- Kris

microbit wrote:

> [snip]
>
>The polygon pour is really great too, perfect for RF - even at 900 MHz and
>2.4 GHz
>
>-- Kris
>

    But you know what's really annoying is that when you pour a polygon 
and connect it to a net (like ground), and you select the net for 
highlighting, it doesn't show the polygon poured copper as part of the 
net.  It really is, of course, but when you're looking for shapes, it 
would be helpful.  Consider where you have a ground plane that ends up 
in a 'U' shape.  I'll usually manually route a ground across the top of 
the 'U', but I have to look at each filled area to see that it's not a 
long finger, only attached at one point.

    I'm sure I don't use it as effectively as I could, but it's a good 
package.

    --jc

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...> wrote:
> Robert Adsett wrote:
> > At 09:45 PM 2/19/04 +0000, you wrote:
> > 
> >>I was thinking (viewed from above):
> >>
> >>3.3v          0v
> >>/RST          RD
> >>P0.14         TD
> >>3.3v          0v
> > 
> > 
> > What about
> > n/c     0V
> > /RST     RxD
> > P0.14    TxD
> > 3.3V      -
> > 
> > where - is either a snipped pin or a plugged hole for keying (so
we don't 
> > let the smoke out of something when we try to hook it up
backwards).  and 
> > n/c is just not assigned to anything.
> > 
> > I like to protect myself against my own clumsiness :)
> 
> I agree heartily! Let's go for it. I'll put a note on the Wiki.

I would suggest that you assign pin numbers for clarity and so that
everyone uses the same numbers.  I made a comment on the wiki that you
can read (and remove).

redsp@... wrote:

> 
> I would suggest that you assign pin numbers for clarity and so that
> everyone uses the same numbers.  I made a comment on the wiki that you
> can read (and remove).  
> 

Heartily agreed, and acted upon ;-)

ABS

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...> wrote:
> redsp@y... wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I would suggest that you assign pin numbers for clarity and so that
> > everyone uses the same numbers.  I made a comment on the wiki that you
> > can read (and remove).  
> > 
> 
> Heartily agreed, and acted upon ;-)

As long as everyone is open to suggestions, I think a change to the
pinout might be useful.  If you ignore the pin one mark (or it is
missing or the cable is made backwards) and your connector is not
plugged, you can still plug the cable on backwards.  With power and
ground on opposite corners this can do some real damage.  If you put
3.3 volts on pin 1 instead, it will connected to the missing key pin
when backwards and no damage should be done.  

I added this suggestion to the wiki, too.

At 04:42 PM 2/20/04 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...> wrote:
> > redsp@y... wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I would suggest that you assign pin numbers for clarity and so that
> > > everyone uses the same numbers.  I made a comment on the wiki that you
> > > can read (and remove).
> > >
> >
> > Heartily agreed, and acted upon ;-)
>
>As long as everyone is open to suggestions, I think a change to the
>pinout might be useful.  If you ignore the pin one mark (or it is
>missing or the cable is made backwards) and your connector is not
>plugged, you can still plug the cable on backwards.  With power and
>ground on opposite corners this can do some real damage.  If you put
>3.3 volts on pin 1 instead, it will connected to the missing key pin
>when backwards and no damage should be done.
>
>I added this suggestion to the wiki, too.

Of course you are assuming they share a common ground :)  That'll be true a 
lot though.

I like the change.  Any objections or other considerations?  It would be 
nice to have this firm.  I belive what we have now is .. (oops just read 
the updated note on the Wiki suggesting a move of 0V away from the 
3.3V).  Ahem What we have now is ...

pin 1 -  3.3V      n/c  - pin 2
pin 3 - /RST      RxD - pin 4
pin 5 -  P0.14    TxD - pin 6
pin 7 - 0V          -     - pin 8

Robert


" 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself.  There are always restrictions,
be they legal, genetic, or physical.  If you don't believe me, try to
chew a radio signal. "

                         Kelvin Throop, III

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Robert Adsett <subscriptions@a...>
wrote:

> Of course you are assuming they share a common ground :)  That'll be
true a 
> lot though.
> 
> I like the change.  Any objections or other considerations?  It
would be 
> nice to have this firm.  I belive what we have now is .. (oops just
read 
> the updated note on the Wiki suggesting a move of 0V away from the 
> 3.3V).  Ahem What we have now is ...
> 
> pin 1 -  3.3V      n/c  - pin 2
> pin 3 - /RST      RxD - pin 4
> pin 5 -  P0.14    TxD - pin 6
> pin 7 - 0V          -     - pin 8


I hope others help make this decision.  I actually have
nothing vested in this.  I am just making some suggestions.  

Another one would be to move the signals on pin 3 through 7 up one pin
so that the n/c is on pin 7.  You still have dealt with the saftey
issues of accidentally swapping/shorting power to ground and now if
anyone wants to save space (and give up the polarized key) they can go
to a 6 pin connector.  It is not uncommon that a tiny design needs to
save all the space they can.  And that is what these MCUs are all
about is *tiny*, right? 

pin 1 -  3.3V    /RST  - pin 2
pin 3 -  RxD     P0.14 - pin 4
pin 5 -  0v      TxD   - pin 6
pin 7 -  n/c     key   - pin 8

All of these are just ideas.  But I promise I will stop.  So pick
one... :)

Hi John,

Is this with Client 98, or newer ?
99SE had problems with properly connecting busses between
worksheets when you do a netlist compare, but I find 98 very stable,
never had a problem (with the patch).
I don't know what causes the problem you describe, maybe a bug -
I've never had an issue like that ?

-- Kris


> microbit wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> >
> >The polygon pour is really great too, perfect for RF - even at 900 MHz
and

> >2.4 GHz
> >
> >-- Kris
> >
>
>     But you know what's really annoying is that when you pour a polygon
> and connect it to a net (like ground), and you select the net for
> highlighting, it doesn't show the polygon poured copper as part of the
> net.  It really is, of course, but when you're looking for shapes, it
> would be helpful.  Consider where you have a ground plane that ends up
> in a 'U' shape.  I'll usually manually route a ground across the top of
> the 'U', but I have to look at each filled area to see that it's not a
> long finger, only attached at one point.
>
>     I'm sure I don't use it as effectively as I could, but it's a good
> package.
>
>     --jc
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Hello
      I am currently looking at using a LPC2106 in an access control
unit to interface to a number of Dallas DS1990 iButtons. Am I correct
in thinking that with a little code the iButtons could be interfaced
to any of the LPC2106's GPIO pins ? Or would the iButton need to be
interfaced to one the processors serial IO pins ?

Thanks

Ian

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Ian Wraith" <i.wraith@...>
To: <lpc2000@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 11:51 AM
Subject: [lpc2000] Interfacing a LPC2106 to a Dallas DS1990 iButton


> Hello
>       I am currently looking at using a LPC2106 in an access control
> unit to interface to a number of Dallas DS1990 iButtons. Am I correct
> in thinking that with a little code the iButtons could be interfaced
> to any of the LPC2106's GPIO pins ? Or would the iButton need to be
> interfaced to one the processors serial IO pins ?

The interface has to be 'bit-banged' in software so any I/O chip may be
used. Several people have done this sort of thing with PICs and AVRs, it
shouldn't be difficult to modify the code for the LPC2106.

Leon

Hello

>The interface has to be 'bit-banged' in software so any I/O chip 
>may be used. Several people have done this sort of thing with PICs 
>and AVRs, it shouldn't be difficult to modify the code for the 
>LPC2106.

 Thanks Leon - I have used 8751's for this task before but this
application looks a bit more demanding. Anyway I want to play with
the LPC2xxx family :)

Regards

Ian

At 11:51 AM 9/7/04 +0100, you wrote:
>Hello
>       I am currently looking at using a LPC2106 in an access control
>unit to interface to a number of Dallas DS1990 iButtons. Am I correct
>in thinking that with a little code the iButtons could be interfaced
>to any of the LPC2106's GPIO pins ? Or would the iButton need to be
>interfaced to one the processors serial IO pins ?

I've ported the Dallas 1-wire library using the 2106 timers.  See 
http://www.aeolusdevelopment.com/Articles/download.html

I need to do a little maintenance on it to bring it into line with the 
latest version of the newlib-lpc timing (it uses the previous version) but 
that's minor calling differences.

Robert

" 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself.  There are always restrictions,
be they legal, genetic, or physical.  If you don't believe me, try to
chew a radio signal. "

                         Kelvin Throop, III

On Sep 7, 2004, at 4:29 AM, Leon Heller wrote:

>>       I am currently looking at using a LPC2106 in an access control
>> unit to interface to a number of Dallas DS1990 iButtons. Am I correct
>> in thinking that with a little code the iButtons could be interfaced
>> to any of the LPC2106's GPIO pins ? Or would the iButton need to be
>> interfaced to one the processors serial IO pins ?
>
> The interface has to be 'bit-banged' in software so any I/O chip may be
> used. Several people have done this sort of thing with PICs and AVRs, 
> it
> shouldn't be difficult to modify the code for the LPC2106.
>

This maxim tech note talks about how to interface a one-wire device to 
a uart. Rather expensive use of resources, but if you're not using the 
uart for anything else...

http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm/appnote_number/1189

Shannon

On 7 Sep 2004 at 11:51, Ian Wraith wrote:

> Hello
>       I am currently looking at using a LPC2106 in an access control
> unit to interface to a number of Dallas DS1990 iButtons. Am I correct
> in thinking that with a little code the iButtons could be interfaced
> to any of the LPC2106's GPIO pins ? Or would the iButton need to be
> interfaced to one the processors serial IO pins ?
> 

From a Maxim App-Note:
1-Wire devices operate in an open-drain environment on bus voltages
ranging from 2.0V to 5.5V.  Exact logic levels and minimum pullup
voltages are device dependent, though generally parasite-power devices
require minimum pullup voltage of 2.8V to recharge an internal storage
capacitor used to supply power during periods when the data line is low.
A 4.7k resistor typically serves as the pullup on the 1-Wire data line.
The resistor provides logic-high signals passively, with the bus master
and all slave devices driving the logic-low signals.

Only the pins for the I2C interface are open drain, hence you probably will need
to add a transistor or tri-state buffer type circuit as described in the Dallas/Maxim
app notes.

Regards
   Anton Erasmus-- 
A J Erasmus

Hello
     Many thanks to both Robert & Shannon for your help with this.
I shall be investigating both methods of 1 wire interfacing.

Regards

Ian