Em 25/3/2011 13:09, Olin Lathrop escreveu:
> Isaac Marino Bavaresco wrote:
>> Interesting, this is THE PICLIST and my PIC post didn't receive any
>> response yet,
>> <remainder of whine snipped>
> I saw your post but didn't respond because:
>
> 1 - The obvious thing to do is to try it in a real chip.  For some
>     reason you didn't seem to do this and I didn't feel like writing
>     a post "So try it in a real chip, duh.".


At that time I didn't have the board in-hand. This morning I received
one board and could see that my routines work correctly, so the bug is
in the simulator.


> 2 - I saw C code.  I generally avoid helping people when they
>     program in C because I don't want to spend time on possible
>     compiler problems, and don't want to spend time on people that
>     may not be interested in learning the low level details.  I'm
>     not saying you don't, but since the example is in C, the chances
>     are greater.


The Microchip boot-loaders are supplied as C source code.


> 3 - The error message was complaining about a "mode", which is
>     probably the NVMCON opcode,


There is no NVMCON opcode, NVMCON is a register that is written with the
requested programming mode.


>  but I didn't see you pay any
>     attention to the information the system was already giving you
>     or show us the NVMCON value.


In the source code:

>#define PM_WORD_WRITE    0x4003
> ...
>     NVMCON        =3D PM_WORD_WRITE;
>



>   I didn't feel like playing 20
>     questions, and it seemed to me you were just throwing up your
>     hands and calling for help before having exhausted reasonable
>     means at your disposal to diagnose the problem.
>
> 4 - You didn't even say which line of code caused the error.


Sorry, I forgot to say that the message was being issued when the line
"__builtin_write_NVM();" was executed. This pseudo-function does exactly
the programming sequenced recommended by Microchip.


>   That's
>     a so blantantly obvious piece of important information that I felt
>     your level of diagnostic skill was going to make getting into this
>     too much trouble, with lots of back and forth just to get basic
>     information you should have seen was necessary for yourself.
>
> So I hit delete and moved on.
>
> To all those that always say you shouldn't reply when you don't have
> anything useful to say, here is a example where I did exactly that.  See
> what happens?  The OP had no idea why nobody replied.  To anyone who now
> feels the need to complain about this post: First, he asked.  Second, I
> originally didn't respond and that didn't work.  You can't have it both
> ways.


I agree with you, your behavior was perfectly correct and I don't have
any complains about it. I was just making a comment about the list as a
whole.


Best regards,

Isaac

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.