Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> Maybe it is easier to put a fuse there. How will you implement
> short circuit protection? It will most likely make the
> circuits more complex.

I don't like fuses because they take a lot of board space and are a hassle
to deal with.  I have designed the circuit so that the current the circuit
can deliver is inherently limited, and made sure the circuit can take the
worst case dissipation caused by a short.  Something will get warm, but it
will all be within spec.

> Another problem is over-voltage protection of PGC/PGD.
> This may be a secondary consideration but ESD can kill the
> programmer. Maybe a 6V2 zener is good to have on PGC/PGD.

Yes, there are an infinite number of things one can do to decrease the
chance of damage, but they cost an infinite amount too.  No matter what I
do, there will be some type of abuse that can cause permanent damage.  Would
you rather have a $50 thing that can handle 99% of abuse, or a $100 thing
that can handle 99.9% of abuse?

> But the ICD2 debugging ability will definitely be a big plus
> if it is implemented. However I guess then Olin may not
> be able to open the host software due to the NDA...

I can't release the interface spec to MPLAB, which might cover my code that
acts as the glue between MPLAB and my programmer software.  However the
PICPRG library and programmer communications protocol are my own and
Microchip has nothing to say about who I release it to.  If I do create an
MPLAB interface it will be a glue layer above the PICPRG library.  I don't
see why anyone would want to mess with this layer anyway since it would
already do the only one thing it could do.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist