In circuit serial programming ?

[Darren Logan]

Hello,

Would someone be so kind as to point me in the direction of an in-circuit-serial-programmer for a PIC16F873 please.

Thanks,
Darren
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12004

[Neutone]

:=Hello,
:=
:=Would someone be so kind as to point me in the direction of an in-circuit-serial-programmer for a PIC16F873 please.
:=
:=Thanks,
:=Darren

Digikey has the ICD2 for sale. I recomend getting it with the PICDEM because it is a good development tool. You can read about these at the microchip web site.
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12006

[Darren Logan]

Hello,

Thanks for this. Actually it's the ICD (not ICD2) for the PIC16F87x range.

The kit contains a debugger as well as programmer. Does this mean that I can run my CCS C-Code on a target PIC and view code/variables as I step through the program?

What I need right now is the pin-out details for in-circuit-serial-programming as I would like to add this feature to a project im working on.
Do I simply need to add connectivity to the 2 serial programming pins and ensure nothing in the circuit is loading the 2 pins?

What's the difference/advantages of serial programming to say programming using the in-circuit-programmer from RF Solutions? (just an extension board to the PICStart plus)

Regards,
Darren
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12010

[john cutler]

:=Hello,
:=
:=Thanks for this. Actually it's the ICD (not ICD2) for the PIC16F87x range.
:=
go to CCS main page faq - there's a diagram

:=The kit contains a debugger as well as programmer. Does this mean that I can run my CCS C-Code on a target PIC and view code/variables as I step through the program?
:=
:=What I need right now is the pin-out details for in-circuit-serial-programming as I would like to add this feature to a project im working on.
:=Do I simply need to add connectivity to the 2 serial programming pins and ensure nothing in the circuit is loading the 2 pins?
:=
:=What's the difference/advantages of serial programming to say programming using the in-circuit-programmer from RF Solutions? (just an extension board to the PICStart plus)
:=
:=Regards,
:=Darren
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12011

[Neutone]

:=Hello,
:=
:=Thanks for this. Actually it's the ICD (not ICD2) for the PIC16F87x range.
:=
:=The kit contains a debugger as well as programmer. Does this mean that I can run my CCS C-Code on a target PIC and view code/variables as I step through the program?
:=
:=What I need right now is the pin-out details for in-circuit-serial-programming as I would like to add this feature to a project im working on.
:=Do I simply need to add connectivity to the 2 serial programming pins and ensure nothing in the circuit is loading the 2 pins?
:=
:=What's the difference/advantages of serial programming to say programming using the in-circuit-programmer from RF Solutions? (just an extension board to the PICStart plus)
:=
:=Regards,
:=Darren

The PICDEM2 board should allow you to plug in a DIP package version of the PIC16F87x. You should lookup the board to see the sockets it has and get the schematic for it as well. Actually the ICD2 does work with PIC16F87x and I think almost the entire PIC product line. When I select 16F873 MPLAB sends different firmware to the ICD2 for that chip. When I select 18F452 it loads firmware again. The ICD works with fewer chips. The ICD2 is probably faster when used with USB that any other programmer. The ICD2 uses a 6 pin modular plug like the ones on a telephone. You should plan to have a header with the 2 programming pins, MCLR, V+ and GND. If you have a header that allows ICSP using the RF Solutions programmer you can adapt your headder to work with the ICD2. In theory you can use the ICD2 to step through code. I have always found that to be a poor solution for debugging.
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12012

[Mark]

Microchip's website should provide you with the answers you seek. Lookup the schematic for the PICDEM2 board. Since it works with the ICD2, just copy how the programming is accomplished on this board. You have to pay special attention to the programming pins if you need to use them when not programming or debugging. Buttons are always nice to put here. Just don't press them while you are programming or debugging.

:=Hello,
:=
:=Thanks for this. Actually it's the ICD (not ICD2) for the PIC16F87x range.
:=
:=The kit contains a debugger as well as programmer. Does this mean that I can run my CCS C-Code on a target PIC and view code/variables as I step through the program?
:=
:=What I need right now is the pin-out details for in-circuit-serial-programming as I would like to add this feature to a project im working on.
:=Do I simply need to add connectivity to the 2 serial programming pins and ensure nothing in the circuit is loading the 2 pins?
:=
:=What's the difference/advantages of serial programming to say programming using the in-circuit-programmer from RF Solutions? (just an extension board to the PICStart plus)
:=
:=Regards,
:=Darren
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12014

[Douglas Kennedy]

Microchip has a history of just dropping support when they feel like it. Microchip did this for the ICD1 and there were rumors they might burn the picstart plus users as well. If past behavior is an indicator of future behavior it may also happen for the Microchip ICD2. At $150 you may not get enough value out of it before they drop it.
Look at the $50 alternatives such as ICDS from CCS. To CCS's credit they have stepped up to support the ICD after Microchip ditched everyone. Microchip didn't even bother to provide a discounted upgrade path to the ICD2 for existing users. When Microchip manufactured defective 18F452 chips it was 3rd party compilers that saved the chips from the trash bin by putting dummy nop patches into their code. I've not yet heard that Microchip has plans to replace these defective chips with working ones.
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12018

[Mark]

Microchip dropping support?? I don't see it that way. They came out with new products that have more and better features! The ICD will not suppor the PIC18's! Solution? Well, make a new ICD and call it ICD2. When it first came out, it only supported the PIC18's. Now it supports the 16's as well. Now that doesn't sound like dropping support to me. As for the PICSTART. There is only so much they can do with it. It has reached its limits. They can not add every single new device they develop. Buy a Microchip development tool and break it. Guess what they do. They replace it! Do you know how much I pay for compiler upgrades? $0.00! This is the kind of lack of support I like :)


:=Microchip has a history of just dropping support when they feel like it. Microchip did this for the ICD1 and there were rumors they might burn the picstart plus users as well. If past behavior is an indicator of future behavior it may also happen for the Microchip ICD2. At $150 you may not get enough value out of it before they drop it.
:=Look at the $50 alternatives such as ICDS from CCS. To CCS's credit they have stepped up to support the ICD after Microchip ditched everyone. Microchip didn't even bother to provide a discounted upgrade path to the ICD2 for existing users. When Microchip manufactured defective 18F452 chips it was 3rd party compilers that saved the chips from the trash bin by putting dummy nop patches into their code. I've not yet heard that Microchip has plans to replace these defective chips with working ones.
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12019

[Freddie L]

<font face="Courier New" size=-1>Microchip's free development enviornment (MPLAB) stopped supporting the orignial ICD in late v5.xx.

MPLAB v6.xx only supports the ICD2. The ICD2 supports the 16F87x chips and many more. It also has a USB interface!


:=Hello,
:=
:=Thanks for this. Actually it's the ICD (not ICD2) for the PIC16F87x range.
:=
:=The kit contains a debugger as well as programmer. Does this mean that I can run my CCS C-Code on a target PIC and view code/variables as I step through the program?
:=
:=What I need right now is the pin-out details for in-circuit-serial-programming as I would like to add this feature to a project im working on.
:=Do I simply need to add connectivity to the 2 serial programming pins and ensure nothing in the circuit is loading the 2 pins?
:=
:=What's the difference/advantages of serial programming to say programming using the in-circuit-programmer from RF Solutions? (just an extension board to the PICStart plus)
:=
:=Regards,
:=Darren</font>
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12020

[Neutone]

Think about this. If it takes 90 seconds to program a chip with the ICD and 15 with the ICD2 you save 75 seconds each time you program a chip. At 25$ an hour I would have to program 200 times for the ICD2 to be a better value. Some days I load code into the same chip several dozen times. I see a real advantage in the USB interface.

I would like to see CCS pickup support for programming with the ICD2. I dont like having to use MPLAB.
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12021

[Freddie L]

Unless there is a technical reason why MPLAB can't support the ICD and ICD2 simultaneously, I see not reason why MPLAB 6.xx should just instantly stop supporting the ICD? What about those customers that want to continue using only the 16 chip? The ICD worked great for that. Ok, not great, but it worked! :-)

Microchip has sort of got ya. If you want to upgrade to the 32 bit MPLAB (v6.xx) you can't use your old ICD, you must get the ICD2.

All in all, MPLAB is free and the ICD2 is not THAT expensive. The ICD2 is much faster too.

-cheers.


:=Microchip dropping support?? I don't see it that way. They came out with new products that have more and better features! The ICD will not suppor the PIC18's! Solution? Well, make a new ICD and call it ICD2. When it first came out, it only supported the PIC18's. Now it supports the 16's as well. Now that doesn't sound like dropping support to me. As for the PICSTART. There is only so much they can do with it. It has reached its limits. They can not add every single new device they develop. Buy a Microchip development tool and break it. Guess what they do. They replace it! Do you know how much I pay for compiler upgrades? $0.00! This is the kind of lack of support I like <img src="http://www.ccsinfo.com/pix/forum/smile.gif" border="0">
:=
:=
:=:=Microchip has a history of just dropping support when they feel like it. Microchip did this for the ICD1 and there were rumors they might burn the picstart plus users as well. If past behavior is an indicator of future behavior it may also happen for the Microchip ICD2. At $150 you may not get enough value out of it before they drop it.
:=:=Look at the $50 alternatives such as ICDS from CCS. To CCS's credit they have stepped up to support the ICD after Microchip ditched everyone. Microchip didn't even bother to provide a discounted upgrade path to the ICD2 for existing users. When Microchip manufactured defective 18F452 chips it was 3rd party compilers that saved the chips from the trash bin by putting dummy nop patches into their code. I've not yet heard that Microchip has plans to replace these defective chips with working ones.
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12022

[Mark]

Maybe they will add support for the ICD at a later time. Their first goal is to give you a free IDE that supports their new tools. Besides, the old MPLAB supported the ICD and still works. For those people who want to stick with their old ICD then stick with your old MPLAB. Makes sense to me.


:=Unless there is a technical reason why MPLAB can't support the ICD and ICD2 simultaneously, I see not reason why MPLAB 6.xx should just instantly stop supporting the ICD? What about those customers that want to continue using only the 16 chip? The ICD worked great for that. Ok, not great, but it worked! :-)
:=
:=Microchip has sort of got ya. If you want to upgrade to the 32 bit MPLAB (v6.xx) you can't use your old ICD, you must get the ICD2.
:=
:=All in all, MPLAB is free and the ICD2 is not THAT expensive. The ICD2 is much faster too.
:=
:=-cheers.
:=
:=
:=:=Microchip dropping support?? I don't see it that way. They came out with new products that have more and better features! The ICD will not suppor the PIC18's! Solution? Well, make a new ICD and call it ICD2. When it first came out, it only supported the PIC18's. Now it supports the 16's as well. Now that doesn't sound like dropping support to me. As for the PICSTART. There is only so much they can do with it. It has reached its limits. They can not add every single new device they develop. Buy a Microchip development tool and break it. Guess what they do. They replace it! Do you know how much I pay for compiler upgrades? $0.00! This is the kind of lack of support I like <img src="http://www.ccsinfo.com/pix/forum/smile.gif" border="0">
:=:=
:=:=
:=:=:=Microchip has a history of just dropping support when they feel like it. Microchip did this for the ICD1 and there were rumors they might burn the picstart plus users as well. If past behavior is an indicator of future behavior it may also happen for the Microchip ICD2. At $150 you may not get enough value out of it before they drop it.
:=:=:=Look at the $50 alternatives such as ICDS from CCS. To CCS's credit they have stepped up to support the ICD after Microchip ditched everyone. Microchip didn't even bother to provide a discounted upgrade path to the ICD2 for existing users. When Microchip manufactured defective 18F452 chips it was 3rd party compilers that saved the chips from the trash bin by putting dummy nop patches into their code. I've not yet heard that Microchip has plans to replace these defective chips with working ones.
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12024

[Douglas Kennedy]

If you want to take the Microchip party line then then you will never question their position. If CCS can support the ICD1 ( via a firmare download conversion to ICDS) and support both the 16Fxxx and the 18Fxxx chips and by swapping the xtal to 20 mhz outperform ICD2 and do it for free assuming like me you all ready have an ICD1 and PCWH then I say it casts doubt on the Microchip line that these things can't be done. If Microchip replaces debuggers and compilers that don't work for free I sure wish they would replace the defective 18F452's since that is supposed to be their core area of compentency.
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12037

[TSchultz]

I suspect that most of the reason for Microchip dropping support for the ICD1 is that is was designed/built by Adv-transdata who is no longer in business. I do feel a bit abandoned by Microchip in that they no longer support this tool, I have however invested in the ICD2.

When using the USB interface, much of the reason for me buying it in the first place, programming is very quick. I am not impressed with the debugging however.
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12052

[FrustratedPicker]

:=Think about this. If it takes 90 seconds to program a chip with the ICD and 15 with the ICD2 you save 75 seconds each time you program a chip. At 25$ an hour I would have to program 200 times for the ICD2 to be a better value. Some days I load code into the same chip several dozen times. I see a real advantage in the USB interface.
:=
:=I would like to see CCS pickup support for programming with the ICD2. I dont like having to use MPLAB.

I bought an ICD2 but have not been able to get it to work with CCS and the MPLAB together, tired of looking at it..

For a couple years now I've used the PICALL for ISP programming, www.picallw.com, it does a 872 in 11 seconds, so its probalby as fast as the ICD2, but I thought the clean USB design would be a good move, especially for the newer parts coming along..
___________________________
This message was ported from CCS's old forum
Original Post ID: 12111