18f6722 errata and alternatives

[EdWaugh]

Hi,

I've been using the 18f6722 for a while and have managed to get everything I wanted working (although not always with quite the preformance I would expect). I'm just about to start a new project and was looking through the errata for the part and there are quite a few. Whilst I realise these can mostly be worked around I am wondering if there is a less buggy part out there. Does anyone have any recomendations for something with simlar IO and performance but with less dodgyness? I had a browse through the microchip site and it still seems like the best option.

Also, one of the errata is regarding the use of HIGH interrupts and basically they seem to work round this by not using them and having two low level handlers. Has anyone used this workaround? I've been using HIGH interrupts without it and whilst they work I have had some performance problems ie: data being missed on incoming rs232 at rates higher than 4800 baud. Does this seem like a manifestation of this bug? If I can't do prioritised interrupts that can interrupt lower level ones then the part is much less use to me.

cheers

ed

[EdWaugh]

Hi guys,

I know someone muct have an opinion on this! I'm not looking for definitive answers although I'm guessing from the lack of responses there is no obvious alternative to the 18f6722 (& family). How about the HIGH interrupts thing? Does anyone know if the CCS compiler is applying this workaround automatically? What performance hit might we expect from it?

cheers

ed

[rwyoung]

I've been using the PIC18F6525 instead of the 8722 that was originally specified in a design but it isn't exactly a 1:1 replacement part. More a case of, "OK, the 6525 has enough pins and junk to work".
_________________
Rob Young
The Screw-Up Fairy may just visit you but he has crashed on my couch for the last month!