On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 11:56:21PM +0200, Rob Hamerling wrote:
> Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
> >is that parallel interfaces take up so much I/O real estate. You're literally
> >talking about the entire PSP on a PIC for the interface! I'd almost rather
> >give up a body part than 11 I/O line
> >
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong:  if you perform ISCP (LVP) via a
> parallel port you need only 3 ports. And I think 2 can be used normally
> when the PIC is not in programming mode, so in fact it costs only 1 port.

Rob,

You pulled my statement out of context. Here is James' original statement that
I was responding to:

"INTERFACE:
The interface to the host is always going to be a pain. As pointed out by
many, every path leads to failure in some subset of the possible cases. I
think there is only one solution: Redundancy.

- Parallel: Start with a standard parallel port interface via an 8 bit port
on the PIC and 3 control lines from another port
"
 James was specifically referring to an 11 pin parallel interface on a PIC,
not the parallel port. My response simply indicates that 11 pins of I/O
real estate is expensive...

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads