I know what u are saying. It would be as simple as adding bit-banging 1-pin interface instead and call that function instead of feeding the usart registers... I did make a system once that used two different physical interfaces for regular use and configuration. I simply made a converter and used the paralell port to talk to it. Worked well. Adapters is a possibility you know. Anyway... Yeah, there will always be design-choices. Kyrre ----- Original Message ----- From: "Byron A Jeff" To: Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 2:10 AM Subject: Re: [PIC:] 16F88 RS232 bootloader. > On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 11:08:33PM +0200, Kyrre Aalerud wrote: > > Actually, my loader isn't tying up the usart at all. It only uses it during > > load. Then the system itself can use it after boot to retrieve my logged > > data etc... No response from PC within a few ms means go and boot... > > I understand where you are coming from. In your case the load application and > the application application share the same physical RS232 interface. But as > I've pointed out elsewhere, it's no fun when the two conflict because the > bootloader needs to be connected to the PC, while the application needs to > be connected to something else. > > Kyrre, it's a design choice. It's the right choice in your particular > application. I'm not knocking it. However I tend to view bootloading from > a general development perspective. See my list of 9 items for the ideal > bootloader in my other post for details. > > BAJ > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics