On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 10:27:17AM +0100, Mike Harrison wrote:
> >> Why can't the level converter be on a programming dongle, instead of on the
> >> target board.
> >
> >Point taken. However how do you manage the situation where the programmer
> >dongle and the USART target use differering interface technologies? Like
> >the MIDI example above or the EIA-485 thread that's currently under discussion.
> Easy - the programming interface interfaces RS232 to MIDI (or
> whatever) levels.
>
> >I guess I just feel really strongly in my gut that a bootloader that uses
> >unique standard equipment is bothersome. If there were two USARTS I probably
> >wouldn't be so annoyed.
>
> The beauty of the Pic's self-programming system is that you can
> reprogram with whatever interfaces a product has - I've used it on an
> infra-red interface to reprogram an environmentally sealed product.
> You could even reprogram over MIDI protocols if you really wanted to,
> e.g. if you wanted your customers to be able to reprogram in the
> field. As reprogramming will usually be a fairly rare, knocing up a
> RS232 to MIDI (level only) converter is a small price to pay for the
> flexibility that ICP provides.

But you're right back to the original problem that I pointed out originally
which is physically having to swap cables simply to program.

I think part of the problem is that I'm not viewing this process from an
infield reprogramming standpoint. I'm viewing it from a development standpoint.
When I'm developing, all I want to do is re-edit the code, compile it,
download it, and test. I don't want to have to make any physical adjustments
to my target setup during development. With PICLoader, any target that actually
used the USART would require such an adjustment each and every time I changed
the program.

Wloader has a dedicated programming port pin. During development it doubles as
a debugging serial port. Other than that port pin, it uses no resources on
the chip. Therefore there is no conflict between Wloader and the resources that
the target uses.

All the responses to my original criticisms state that there are workarounds
to the problems that are presented by PICloader. But none of those issues
exists with Wloader, therefore no workarounds are necessary. Because of that
it is my opinion that in terms of bootloaders that Wloader is superior to
PICLoader.

Which BTW is all I wanted to say in the first place.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.