I'm going a bit off-topic here, but the attitude that ALL programmable parts MUST be field-updateable is also present in my company and it irks me quite a bit. I agree that after-the-fact, you sometimes wish you had such ability, but if you are using a tiny micro to replace a bunch of logic or other non-programmable circuitry, it seems to me that it makes no sense to prefer the non-programmable circuitry over the micro just because you are not including the ability to re-program in the field. You can't re-design the circuit in the field! The other attitude that bothers me, related to this, is the policy that separate people design boards and write code. That makes sense for complex code but not for all simple microcontroller code. It's fine if you want to make the EE adhere to the same coding standards or some subset of them, but sometimes I end up using a non-ideal implementation just because I had to avoid using a programmable part because I didn't have time to get the firmware team involved. Sean On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Harold Hallikainen wrote: > I've seen EEPOTs with SPI and up/down pulse controls. It may be cheapest > to use an 8 pin PIC to do the interface. When there's a programmable part > in our systems, they generally like to have a field update capability, > which further complicates things. But, I may be able to get by with a > --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .