On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 01:01:54PM +0100, Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> >> The "programmer" processor should be soldered in, and not in a socket.
>
> >You get more flexibility if it's socketed. For example if someone need to
> >do near exclusive 18F development. it would only be the cost of swapping
> the
> >parts.
>
> well I figure this is the way to "disappear" the "programmer" and make it a
> development unit. I thought that there was some consensus on disappearing
> the programming function.

That wasn't my understanding...

> This then means that there is a programmer on the
> board which can never be touched by the user, so bootstrapping up from
> nothing is never a problem.

That wasn't my understanding... ;-)

> I envisaged a surface mount 16F876 for this
> function, a bit like the ICD. Wether it would work as an ICD for an 18Fxxx
> series chip I do not know, maybe the answer is to see what is required for
> that and check if it is backward compatible to the 16F87x series.

Not sure.

I'll keep my summary short. You can check the archives for more details.

The unit comes with one socketed preprogrammed chip (P-socket), an empty
socket (S-socket), and an ICSP port (I-port?).  Development can occur (via
bootloader) to the P-socket chip, or the P-socket chip can program another
chip either via the S-socket or the I-port. The S-socket has two functions:
to allow for a dual 16 serial/18 series setup and to allow full access to the
S-socketed chip (i.e. it doesn't require a bootloader). The I-port is to
program offboard targets and odd sized (relative to the 40 pin P and S socket)
chips.

I hope I kept it short enough.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu