| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
berberis
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
|
| Problem with the ICD flag |
 Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:55 am |
 |
|
I wrote the test program:
| Code: | #include "18f6622.h"
#device *=16
#fuses PROTECT=15
#fuses WRT=15
#fuses EBTR=15
main()
{
} |
When compiled this gave the listing:
| Code: | CCS PCH C Compiler, Version 3.235, 27782 07-Feb-06 15:24
Filename: C:\ccstest\main.LST
ROM used: 26 bytes (0%)
Largest free fragment is 65510
RAM used: 5 (0%) at main() level
5 (0%) worst case
Stack: 0 locations
*
0000: GOTO 0004
.................... #include "18f6622.h"
.................... //////// Standard Header file for the PIC18F6622 device ////////////////
.................... #device PIC18F6622
.................... #list
....................
.................... #device *=16....................
.................... #fuses PROTECT=15
.................... #fuses WRT=15
.................... #fuses EBTR=15
....................
.................... main()
.................... {
0004: CLRF FF8
0006: BCF FD0.7
0008: CLRF FEA
000A: CLRF FE9
000C: MOVF FC1,W
000E: ANDLW C0
0010: IORLW 0F
0012: MOVWF FC1
0014: MOVLW 07
0016: MOVWF FB4
.................... }
....................
0018: SLEEP
Configuration Fuses:
Word 1: 0F00 NOIESO NOFCMEN RESERVED
Word 2: 1F1F BROWNOUT WDT BORV25 NOPUT WDT32768
Word 3: 81F3 CCP2C1 NOLPT1OSC MCLR RESERVED
Word 4: 0085 STVREN NODEBUG LVP NOXINST BBSIZ1K RESERVED
Word 5: C00F NOCPD NOCPB
Word 6: E00F NOWRTD NOWRTC NOWRTB
Word 7: 400F NOEBTRB |
Which is what I expected, I changed the #device line to
| Code: | | #device *=16 ICD=TRUE |
This changed the Configuration Fuses section to
| Code: | Word 1: 0F00 NOIESO NOFCMEN RESERVED
Word 2: 1E19 NOBROWNOUT NOWDT BORV25 NOPUT WDT32768
Word 3: 81F3 CCP2C1 NOLPT1OSC MCLR RESERVED
Word 4: 0000 NOSTVREN DEBUG NOLVP NOXINST BBSIZ1K RESERVED
Word 5: C0FF NOPROTECT NOCPD NOCPB
Word 6: E0FF NOWRT NOWRTD NOWRTC NOWRTB
Word 7: 40FF NOEBTRB NOEBTR |
This causes problems when I try to download the code to an ICD-U40 as in the 6622 the last 3 configuration words have only 4 bits in lower byte so the download fails as the actual configuration fuses dont match the fuses generated by the compiler.
Any ideas? |
|
 |
rwyoung
Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 563
Location: Lawrence, KS USA
|
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 1:34 pm |
|
|
Are you sure
is necessary for the PIC18F6622?
_________________
Rob Young
The Screw-Up Fairy may just visit you but he has crashed on my couch for the last month! |
|
|
PCM programmer
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 21708
|
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:50 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | the download fails as the actual configuration fuses dont match
the fuses generated by the compiler. |
I compiled your program with PCH vs. 3.242, and I got this result:
| Code: | Configuration Fuses:
Word 1: 0F00 NOIESO NOFCMEN RESERVED
Word 2: 1F1F BROWNOUT WDT BORV25 NOPUT WDT32768
Word 3: 81F3 CCP2C1 NOLPT1OSC MCLR RESERVED
Word 4: 0085 STVREN NODEBUG LVP NOXINST BBSIZ1K RESERVED
Word 5: C00F NOPROTECT NOCPD NOCPB
Word 6: E00F NOWRT NOWRTD NOWRTC NOWRTB
Word 7: 400F NOEBTRB NOEBTR |
Here is the Config Bits line from the HEX file. I added spaces
in between the words to make it easier to read. It looks OK.
| Code: | | :0E000000 000F 1F1F F381 8500 0FC0 0FE0 0F40 9F |
So it's probably just a problem with your version. |
|
|
ckielstra
Joined: 18 Mar 2004
Posts: 3680
Location: The Netherlands
|
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:16 am |
|
|
You can fix this yourself by changing the chip configuration using chipedit.exe in the PICC directory.
I compared Chipedit.exe for the 18F6622 in v2.235 and v2.241 and noticed some differences. Change chipedit.exe to the settings below and you should be OK. | Code: |
PROTECT 00FF 0000 5
NOPROTECT 00FF 000F 5
WRT 00FF 0000 6
NOWRT 00FF 000F 6
EBTR 00FF 0000 7
NOEBTR 00FF 000F 7 |
|
|
|
Sigma
Joined: 03 May 2004
Posts: 48
Location: Sg
|
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:15 am |
|
|
Hi, ckielstra or any other friend with latest compiler,
Could you please kindly check for me the value for NOWRTC amd NOWRTD for device 18F6622?
I got some error for these two configurations also.
Thanks.
Sigma |
|
|
Ttelmah
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:09 am |
|
|
Is it perhaps probable that the problem is caused by putting numeric values after the fuses?...
The effect of this will be 'undefined', and is not legitimate CCS code.
Best Wishes |
|
|
ckielstra
Joined: 18 Mar 2004
Posts: 3680
Location: The Netherlands
|
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:46 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | Could you please kindly check for me the value for NOWRTC amd NOWRTD for device 18F6622? |
From a post in another thread I understand you are using v3.236.
The settings for NOWRT and NOWRTD in v3.236 are equal to v3.245, when you compare these settings to the datasheet they seem correct.
Last edited by ckielstra on Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:45 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
ckielstra
Joined: 18 Mar 2004
Posts: 3680
Location: The Netherlands
|
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:44 am |
|
|
| Ttelmah wrote: | Is it perhaps probable that the problem is caused by putting numeric values after the fuses?...
The effect of this will be 'undefined', and is not legitimate CCS code. |
This is another example of new extensions to the compiler nowhere mentioned in the release notes. |
|
|
Sigma
Joined: 03 May 2004
Posts: 48
Location: Sg
|
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:09 am |
|
|
Thanks Ttelmah & ckielstra,
First of all, i did not place numeric values after the fuses in my test program. But i tried to do it also. The results are the same.
I did try just a very simple program like
| Code: |
#include "18f6622.h"
#device ICD=TRUE
#fuses HS, NOWDT
#use delay(clock=20000000)
void main()
{
while(1)
output_high(PIN_A1);
}
|
Initially there is problem of programming it into the chip. The problem is that after programming process, there is a window popping up, indicating some mismatch of the actual and expected configuration bits. But after using the chipedit technique as ckielstra mentioned, it can be programmed and working properly for this simple program. However, when I tried to use the debug mode, it prompts 'The detected target name:PIC18F6622 does not match the code's target: PIC16C622. Do you want to continue' as i also mentioned in the other link http://www.ccsinfo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26463
So from what i tested today, i would say after the chipediting, it improve the programming process, but not for the debugging.
Why i said 'improve'? Because my colleague just found that it is still having problem of burning in the code while come to a more complex code. The process repeated, but the mismatch of the configuration bits are NOWRTC and NOWRTD. Sorry i could not paste the complete code here as it is too lengthy. Actually this is a code migration process from 18F452 to 18F6622. And we did not expect so many problems.
Dear friends, could we say that this is due to older compiler version? Do you foresee I will get into the same problem when i change the mcu to 18F6627? I think so. But not very sure.
Could we solve it by using the latest version. I do not know.
Please help!
Sigma |
|
|
Ttelmah
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:21 am |
|
|
| ckielstra wrote: | | Ttelmah wrote: | Is it perhaps probable that the problem is caused by putting numeric values after the fuses?...
The effect of this will be 'undefined', and is not legitimate CCS code. |
This is another example of new extensions to the compiler nowhere mentioned in the release notes. |
Sorry, but the ability to put a number for some things is mentioned, but I don't think the 6622, allows four bits for all three values. I don't know what the effect of setting a config bit that is not supported would be, but it looked like a likely thing to confuse the configuration bits...
Best Wishes |
|
|
ckielstra
Joined: 18 Mar 2004
Posts: 3680
Location: The Netherlands
|
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 4:01 am |
|
|
| Ttelmah wrote: | | Sorry, but the ability to put a number for some things is mentioned |
You are right, I missed this addition to the October 2005 PICC manual. The version 3.226 I'm using doesn't support this feature, v3.236 does. What I don't like is that new features like this are nowhere mentioned. Not in the PICC release notes or readme.txt.
| Ttelmah wrote: | | but I don't think the 6622, allows four bits for all three values. |
The 6622 supports 4 bits for PROTECT, EBTR and WRT, so setting these fuses to a value of 15 as Sigma does is valid. |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in
