Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>> Well, that's how one could expect it to work, but
>> not as I interpret the datasheet. :-)
>>
>> Was you able to "see" if the programming runed after
>> wring 8 words or after writing all 16 words ?
>> If it erased and re-programed in chunks of 16 words
>> it would make sense.
> 
> I haven't looked at that issue in that datasheet, but there is pretty much
> only one way it can work.  It appears the erase size is 16 words and the
> write buffer is 8 words.  This sort of thing isn't unusual.  I'd expect the
> erase block to always be 16-word aligned and write blocks 8-word aligned.
> That would mean you'd erase a block of 16 words, but it would require two
> write operations to load new data into them.  How else could it work?

The point that was a bit unclear was that the second 8-word write
would erase the same 16-word area (and then erase what was written
in the first 8-word write).

How else ? Well, it could have a 16-word write buffer that you'd
have to write. That would match the automatic 16-word erase better.

If the erase would have been a separately initiated operation (as
in the case of ICSP-programming) there would be no issue.

Jan-Erik.

> 
> 
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist