Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2006-03-23 by topandurangs
Hi all,
I have two LPC2136 chips,in which when i am reading there part id
through Philips downloader utility i am getting part id as 2131.
what is it mean? also when i try to download my code in it ,it
gives error insufficient flash.
I guess it is problem from philips.
How to overcome this problem?
Regards,
Pandurang S.2006-03-26 by topandurangs
--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "topandurangs" <pandurang@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have two LPC2136 chips,in which when i am reading there
part id
> through Philips downloader utility i am getting part id as 2131.
> what is it mean? also when i try to download my code in
it ,it
> gives error insufficient flash.
> I guess it is problem from philips.
> How to overcome this problem?
>
> Regards,
> Pandurang S.
>
hi,
Since i am not getting reply for the message i am posting it
again.Pls approch this serious problem if any one can.
Regards,
Pandurang S.2006-03-26 by Peter Jakacki
I think the obvious answer is that they are 2131s? The Flash utility says they are plus they do not have the memory of the larger 2136. How are they branded, have you checked? Hint! If you cannot read/load more than 32K of Flash then they are 2131s! *Peter* topandurangs wrote:
>> I have two LPC2136 chips,in which when i am reading there part id through Philips downloader utility i am getting part id as 2131. >> what is it mean? also when i try to download my code in it ,it gives error insufficient flash. >> I guess it is problem from philips. >> How to overcome this problem?
2006-03-26 by Pandurang Shinde
thanks Peter for reply, on the chip it is printed as
LPC2136FBD64
S60735.1 04
ZPG0602B
So i am concludung that is LPC2136 only ,but reading LPC2131.
Why this happen.
Can u suggest any solution for it.
Regards,
Pandurang S.
________________________________From: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Jakacki Sent: Sun 3/26/2006 4:36 PM To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lpc2000] Re: read wrong part id of lpc2136 I think the obvious answer is that they are 2131s? The Flash utility says they are plus they do not have the memory of the larger 2136. How are they branded, have you checked? Hint! If you cannot read/load more than 32K of Flash then they are 2131s! *Peter* topandurangs wrote: >> I have two LPC2136 chips,in which when i am reading there part id through Philips downloader utility i am getting part id as 2131. >> what is it mean? also when i try to download my code in it ,it gives error insufficient flash. >> I guess it is problem from philips. >> How to overcome this problem? ________________________________ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS * Visit your group "lpc2000 <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000> " on the web. * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . ________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2006-03-26 by Martin Maurer
Hello,
can you post the id itself, so you can decide if the chip's answer is wrong
or the software on pc is identifying the wrong chip.
As you can see on
http://guest.engelschall.com/~martin/lpc21xx/lpc_ids/index.html
the id for the chip should be the following:
LPC2131: 0x0002FF01 -> 196353
LPC2132: 0x0002FF11 -> 196369
LPC2134: 0x0002FF12 -> 196370
LPC2136: 0x0002FF23 -> 196387
Regards,
Martin
----- Original Message ----- From: "Pandurang Shinde" <pandurang@...> To: <lpc2000@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 2:16 PM Subject: RE: [lpc2000] Re: read wrong part id of lpc2136 > thanks Peter for reply, on the chip it is printed as > > LPC2136FBD64 > > S60735.1 04 > > ZPG0602B > > So i am concludung that is LPC2136 only ,but reading > LPC2131. > Why this happen. > Can u suggest any solution for it. > > Regards, > Pandurang S. > > ________________________________ > > From: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Jakacki > Sent: Sun 3/26/2006 4:36 PM > To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [lpc2000] Re: read wrong part id of lpc2136 > > > I think the obvious answer is that they are 2131s? The Flash utility > says they are plus they do not have the memory of the larger 2136. How > are they branded, have you checked? > > Hint! If you cannot read/load more than 32K of Flash then they are 2131s! > > *Peter* > > topandurangs wrote: >>> I have two LPC2136 chips,in which when i am reading there part id >>> through Philips downloader utility i am getting part id as 2131. >>> what is it mean? also when i try to download my code in it ,it >>> gives error insufficient flash. >>> I guess it is problem from philips. >>> How to overcome this problem? > > > ________________________________ > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > * Visit your group "lpc2000 <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000> " on > the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . > > > ________________________________ > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
2006-03-26 by Peter Jakacki
It is possible that it is branded incorrectly or that an incorrect ID has been loaded. What you can do is to construct a 32K dummy file to confirm that it does load and then step it up to 64K, 128K and so on until you ascertain the memory size. Once you are sure of your facts you can go back to your supplier to rectify the situation. Either way, let us know what you found out. *Peter* Pandurang Shinde wrote:
> thanks Peter for reply, on the chip it is printed as > LPC2136FBD64 > S60735.1 04 > ZPG0602B > > So i am concludung that is LPC2136 only ,but reading LPC2131. > Why this happen. > Can u suggest any solution for it.
2006-03-26 by Gerrit de Waard
Hello Pandurang Shinde,
Is it only one chip, or do you have several with the same problem?
I will look into this problem,
Gerrit de Waard,
Product Enigineer Microcontrollers
Philips Semicondictors
--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Peter Jakacki <peterjak@...> wrote:
>
> It is possible that it is branded incorrectly or that an incorrect
ID
> has been loaded. What you can do is to construct a 32K dummy file
to
> confirm that it does load and then step it up to 64K, 128K and so
on
> until you ascertain the memory size.
>
> Once you are sure of your facts you can go back to your supplier
to
> rectify the situation.
>
> Either way, let us know what you found out.
>
> *Peter*
>
>
> Pandurang Shinde wrote:
> > thanks Peter for reply, on the chip it is printed as
>
>
LPC2136FBD64
>
>
S60735.1 04
>
>
ZPG0602B
> >
> > So i am concludung that is LPC2136
only ,but reading LPC2131.> > Why this happen. > > Can u suggest any solution for it. >
2006-03-26 by Jayasooriah
Hi Pandurang,
Alternatively you can use my loader available at:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~jayas/esdk/sill.html
which reports top ROM (flash) and RAM addresses when you hit the space bar.
I expect the addresses you get will correspond to LPC2131.
The difference between LPC2136 and LPC2131 inside the package is the part
ID that is stored in the boot parameter block. The boot loader loads this
part ID to a special register on startup and this determines how much RAM
and ROM is enabled.
I too am interested in what you find out.
Jaya
--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Peter Jakacki <peterjak@...> wrote:
>
> It is possible that it is branded incorrectly or that an incorrect ID
> has been loaded. What you can do is to construct a 32K dummy file to
> confirm that it does load and then step it up to 64K, 128K and so on
> until you ascertain the memory size.
>
> Once you are sure of your facts you can go back to your supplier to
> rectify the situation.
>
> Either way, let us know what you found out.
>
> *Peter*
Pandurang Shinde wrote:
> thanks Peter for reply, on the chip it is printed as
>
LPC2136FBD64
>
S60735.1 04
>
ZPG0602B
>
> So i am concludung that is LPC2136 only ,but reading
LPC2131.
> Why this happen.
> Can u suggest any solution for it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2006-03-26 by Tom Walsh
Pandurang Shinde wrote: >thanks Peter for reply, on the chip it is printed as > LPC2136FBD64 > S60735.1 04 > ZPG0602B > > So i am concludung that is LPC2136 only ,but reading LPC2131. > Why this happen. > Can u suggest any solution for it. > > Yes, contact your local Philips representative and ask them the question. Traditionally, semiconductor manufacturers have a staff of field personnel who answer such questions about thier products. Here on this list, we are like you: we have used the Philips products in our PCB designs, or are doing projects using such boards. I would suggest you begin with the distributor who sold you the chips. Ask them this question. Ask them if they have a either a "Field Engineer" or "Technical Representative" for Philips. Regards, TomW -- Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..." ----------------------------------------------------
2006-03-26 by Jayasooriah
Hello, Sorry I mistakenly said you should use the space bar. As the on-line manual says, the use the '?' character to print memory limits. Jaya >Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 01:57:52 +1100 > From: Jayasooriah <jayasooriah@...> >Subject: Re: read wrong part id of lpc2136 > >Hi Pandurang, > >Alternatively you can use my loader available at: > > http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~jayas/esdk/sill.html > >which reports top ROM (flash) and RAM addresses when you hit the space bar. CORRECTION: not space bar, but the '?' character ... see the on-line manual. >I expect the addresses you get will correspond to LPC2131. > >The difference between LPC2136 and LPC2131 inside the package is the part >ID that is stored in the boot parameter block. The boot loader loads this >part ID to a special register on startup and this determines how much RAM >and ROM is enabled. > >I too am interested in what you find out. > >Jaya > >--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Peter Jakacki <peterjak@...> wrote: > > > > It is possible that it is branded incorrectly or that an incorrect ID > > has been loaded. What you can do is to construct a 32K dummy file to > > confirm that it does load and then step it up to 64K, 128K and so on > > until you ascertain the memory size. > > > > Once you are sure of your facts you can go back to your supplier to > > rectify the situation. > > > > Either way, let us know what you found out. > > > > *Peter* > > >Pandurang Shinde wrote: > > thanks Peter for reply, on the chip it is printed as > > >LPC2136FBD64 > > >S60735.1 04 > > >ZPG0602B > > > > So i am concludung that is LPC2136 only ,but reading >LPC2131. > > Why this happen. > > Can u suggest any solution for it. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
2006-03-26 by derbaier
--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Pandurang Shinde" <pandurang@...> wrote:
>
> thanks Peter for reply, on the chip it is printed as
>
LPC2136FBD64
>
S60735.1 04
>
ZPG0602B
>
> So i am concludung that is LPC2136 only ,but
reading LPC2131.
> Why this happen.
> Can u suggest any solution for it.
>
> Regards,
> Pandurang S.
>
It is fairly common to "bin" parts during prepackaging testing, so
that chips that have failed some part of the testing can still be
used. If a segment of memory fails in testing the part can simply be
downgraded to the next smaller memory specification and sold at a
reduced price. In other kinds of ASIC chips that is usually done as a
bond out option, but in this case it was apparently done when the boot
loader was programmed prior to packaging. Since the tests are
performed prior to packaging, it is possible that the chips you have
were simply mispackaged if you only have a very small quantity of
chips exibiting the problem that you describe. If you can, it would
probably be good if you could return the chips to your distributor for
replacement. That way, Phillips would be able to verify the problem
and possibly eliminate future occurances. In other words, it is fairly
likely that you have an LPC2131 silicon in a LPC2136 package.
That's just my guess!
-- Dave2006-03-27 by Jayasooriah
Dave, An alternative scenario (that was suggested by a foundry expert I spoke to when I first discovered this) is more plausible for the following reasons: 1/ The boot loader does not select good segment(s) for RAM or ROM. It only limits their sizes by reducing the respective bound. In other words the boot loader does not set or change the base. 2/ It is very unusual to use this method (of selecting using bound only) to improve yield. He thought that for the sizes of RAM and ROM involved here, it is unlikely there are yield problems to the extent software is used to adjust the bound post production. Jaya --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "derbaier" <dershu@...> wrote: > It is fairly common to "bin" parts during prepackaging testing, so > that chips that have failed some part of the testing can still be > used. If a segment of memory fails in testing the part can simply be > downgraded to the next smaller memory specification and sold at a > reduced price. In other kinds of ASIC chips that is usually done as a > bond out option, but in this case it was apparently done when the boot > loader was programmed prior to packaging. Since the tests are > performed prior to packaging, it is possible that the chips you have > were simply mispackaged if you only have a very small quantity of > chips exibiting the problem that you describe. If you can, it would > probably be good if you could return the chips to your distributor for > replacement. That way, Phillips would be able to verify the problem > and possibly eliminate future occurances. In other words, it is fairly > likely that you have an LPC2131 silicon in a LPC2136 package. > > That's just my guess! > -- Dave Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
2006-03-27 by derbaier
--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Jayasooriah <jayasooriah@...> wrote: > > Dave, > > An alternative scenario (that was suggested by a foundry expert I spoke to > when I first discovered this) is more plausible for the following reasons: > > 1/ The boot loader does not select good segment(s) for RAM or ROM. It > only limits their sizes by reducing the respective bound. In other words > the boot loader does not set or change the base. That particular assertion would be much more assuring if it was coming from Phillip's. As for size limiting, of course the FLASH address decoder requires some remapping, but if that is implemented in FLASH itself that is really trivial. > > 2/ It is very unusual to use this method (of selecting using bound only) > to improve yield. Selecting bounds only would be practically useless, since error segments are randomly located. The FLASH address decoder also needs adjustment. However, remapping FLASH segments during prepackaging tests is a very routine operation. > He thought that for the sizes of RAM and ROM involved > here, it is unlikely there are yield problems to the extent software is > used to adjust the bound post production. GIGO > > Jaya > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "derbaier" <dershu@> wrote: > > It is fairly common to "bin" parts during prepackaging testing, so > > that chips that have failed some part of the testing can still be > > used. If a segment of memory fails in testing the part can simply be > > downgraded to the next smaller memory specification and sold at a > > reduced price. In other kinds of ASIC chips that is usually done as a > > bond out option, but in this case it was apparently done when the boot > > loader was programmed prior to packaging. Since the tests are > > performed prior to packaging, it is possible that the chips you have > > were simply mispackaged if you only have a very small quantity of > > chips exibiting the problem that you describe. If you can, it would > > probably be good if you could return the chips to your distributor for > > replacement. That way, Phillips would be able to verify the problem > > and possibly eliminate future occurances. In other words, it is fairly > > likely that you have an LPC2131 silicon in a LPC2136 package. > > > > That's just my guess! > > -- Dave > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com >
2006-03-27 by Jayasooriah
Hello, Consider results for LPC2292 I just did to test out your proposition: The code I used to test this out is as follows: > ldr r1, =0x3fff8000 > ldr r0, =0x0401ff13 > str r0, [r1, #0] The part ID for LPC2292 is 0x0401ff13. The table below gives the max ROM and RAM addresses I get when I changed the each of the last two digits of part ID as follows: >Part Id ROM lim RAM lim > >0401ff13 0003ffff 40003fff > >0401ff12 0001ffff 40003fff >0401ff11 0000ffff 40003fff >0401ff10 00007fff 40003fff > >0401ff03 0003ffff 40001fff The fist one is with the correct part ID. The next three show how ROM is reduced by changing the last digit. The last one shows how RAM is reduced by changing the last second digit. --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "derbaier" <dershu@...> wrote: > > --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Jayasooriah <jayasooriah@> wrote: > > > > Dave, > > > > An alternative scenario (that was suggested by a foundry expert I > spoke to > > when I first discovered this) is more plausible for the following > reasons: > > > > 1/ The boot loader does not select good segment(s) for RAM or ROM. It > > only limits their sizes by reducing the respective bound. In other > words > > the boot loader does not set or change the base. > > > That particular assertion would be much more assuring if it was coming > from Phillip's. As for size limiting, of course the FLASH address > decoder requires some remapping, but if that is implemented in FLASH > itself that is really trivial. Philips has not commented on this issue when I first raised it. It was left to the rest of us who do not know authoritatively what happens in the boot loader to debate on possible scenarios. > > 2/ It is very unusual to use this method (of selecting using bound > only) > > to improve yield. > > Selecting bounds only would be practically useless, since error > segments are randomly located. The FLASH address decoder also needs > adjustment. However, remapping FLASH segments during prepackaging > tests is a very routine operation. There seems to be nothing more than just the loading of the part ID to the special address that does the trick. The same pattern for ROM also exists for RAM. Thus I do not think any flash decoder operations are involved. Regards, Jaya Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
2006-03-27 by Pandurang Shinde
hi,
thanks to all.
Gerrit, i have 45 chips out of 300 having this problem.I can make arrangment to send you the chip.If you want any more details please contact.
When i am using LPC downloader to download the file in to chip,i get warning that flash limit excedded & downloading of file continues.
I also have doubt to jaya that i download the file in path:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~jayas/esdk/sill.html
for using these files i have need any different develoment board,because presently i dont have any USB port.
The part id that i read is 196353 which correspond to LPC2131 as per table given by Martin.
Regards,
Pandurang S.
________________________________From: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Gerrit de Waard
Sent: Sun 3/26/2006 8:11 PM
To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpc2000] Re: read wrong part id of lpc2136
Hello Pandurang Shinde,
Is it only one chip, or do you have several with the same problem?
I will look into this problem,
Gerrit de Waard,
Product Enigineer Microcontrollers
Philips Semicondictors
--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Peter Jakacki <peterjak@...> wrote:
>
> It is possible that it is branded incorrectly or that an incorrect
ID
> has been loaded. What you can do is to construct a 32K dummy file
to
> confirm that it does load and then step it up to 64K, 128K and so
on
> until you ascertain the memory size.
>
> Once you are sure of your facts you can go back to your supplier
to
> rectify the situation.
>
> Either way, let us know what you found out.
>
> *Peter*
>
>
> Pandurang Shinde wrote:
> > thanks Peter for reply, on the chip it is printed as
>
>
LPC2136FBD64
>
>
S60735.1 04
>
>
ZPG0602B
> >
> > So i am concludung that is LPC2136
only ,but reading LPC2131.
> > Why this happen.
> > Can u suggest any solution for it.
>
SPONSORED LINKS
Microcontrollers <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Microcontrollers&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&c=4&s=95&.sig=mfaAujKZXA2Z_vxre9sGnQ> Microprocessor <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Microprocessor&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&c=4&s=95&.sig=9jjd2D3GOLIESVQssLmLsA> Intel microprocessors <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Intel+microprocessors&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&c=4&s=95&.sig=OMnZuqMZX95mgutt4B-tDw>
Pic microcontrollers <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Pic+microcontrollers&w1=Microcontrollers&w2=Microprocessor&w3=Intel+microprocessors&w4=Pic+microcontrollers&c=4&s=95&.sig=Malspbd0T4Rq3M4Q0nHrfw>
________________________________
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
* Visit your group "lpc2000 <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000> " on the web.
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:lpc2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2006-03-27 by Jayasooriah
Hi Pandurang, You do not need USB to use the tools I have put up. It was originally for the CSE@UNSW board that has FT232 interface in lieu of conventional serial port. In your case, if you are connecting your board to "com1" for example, then replace all references in the pages to "usb.1" with "com1" and it will work. If you can get SILL into your flash, I have a couple of hex files that I can send you that will, for example, dump the contents of boot sector and help you work out what exactly is happening to the culprit parts in your batch. The boot parameter block not only holds the part ID, but also start and end addresses of every flash sector in your part. Regards, Jaya --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Pandurang Shinde" <pandurang@...> wrote: > I also have doubt to jaya that i download the file in path: > http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~jayas/esdk/sill.html > for using these files i have need any different develoment board,because presently i dont have any USB port. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com