Alan B. Pearce wrote:
>> The easiest way is to stay off the bleeding edge,
>> and wait for the mext revison to come out.
>>     
>
> Doesn't always work out that way for a couple of reasons ...
>
> 1. Microchip seem to reuse the VHDL for individual modules between all 
> processors in a family, but the support teams for individual chips don't 
> seem to talk to each other. See the recent thread where )IIRC) Bob Blick was 
> having a problem with EEPROMs in a 12F series chip, and I pointed him at 
> what sounded like a similar problem in 16F627/8 chips, but it wasn't noted 
> as an errata for the 12F chips he was using.
>   
Actually, that was me (Bob Axtell). I finally alerted Microchip. They 
wanted to know the datecode, which,
because I had shipped all 50 PIC12F629's used, I couldn't provide. But 
one just popped up on the floor
of the lab a few days ago, and I can now provide that. Indeed, your 
suggestion solved the problem for
me.
> 2. There is no way of knowing when Microchip change the silicon revision 
> until you actually purchase chips and check the revision. So you could wait 
> forever without knowing if they even fixed the bug ... 
>
>   
They need to have a formal announcement of silicon revisions, and WHY it 
was revised, to keep us from
being driven nuts.

--Bob
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist