Jim & Olin (& Others)
Thanks for your reply but::-

a) Code protect is definately disabled - otherwise I wouldn't be able to
read it as a 16C73B. Although I agree that this otherwise matches the
behaviour.
b) I had already changed processor type to 16F73 in the code.  & have just
checked the include files in case there is a setting in there but no joy.
Your comments re the "unassigned" config bits could be useful though - will
try & check this further.

Think I'll send microchip an email
Thanks again

Richard P



 Richard,

 Sound to me like you have the code protect enabled.   Check to make sure
 you have it disabled, then program the device and then read it back  I'll
 bet you see your data as you should see it.

                                                 Regards,

                                                   Jim
& Olin wrote:-

I haven't looked this up so I'm just guessing.  The 16F73 probably differ a
little in their config bits.  Your code is built for the 16C73B, so maybe
one or more of the config bits in the code specifies an unimplemented bit
on
the 16F73 that reads back the other way, therefore failing verify.  Try
changing the processor setting in the code (not just for the programmer) to
16F73.

> I have been given some sample of the 16F73 to evaluate as a replacement
> for the 16C73B we are currently using.
> After updating the firmware in the old PICSTART Plus I have managed to
> program the new device and it works OK. However, when I read the new
> device I only get blanks (0x00's).
>
> If I erase the chip & read it I get successful blank check and it reads
> as 0xFFs
>
> The programming phase claims success but a subsequent verify fails.
> However the program appears to work OK.
>
> If I change the device type back to a 16C73B both read & verify are OK
> - despite the fact I am using a flash device. (I have not tried
> programming in this mode & do not intend to)
>
> I have checked & double checked the configuration bits etc. and
> everything looks to be fine. (i.e. Code protect is definitely OFF).
>
> Has anyone else had this sort of problem or can suggest a fix?
>
> I repeat  - the program appears to run OK and it reads & verifies OK if
> the chip type is changed to 16C73B.
> I have not implemented a checksum test on power-up - and don't think
> it's possible on these chips as the program memory is not accessible.
> (Maybe someone could enlighten me if it is).
>
> Richard P
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

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

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