| ??? 10/02/07 22:04 Read: times |
#145269 - we have answered this many many times before Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Richard Erlacher said:
Has even ONE 805x-clone manufacturer stated that you must use a supervisor in order to ensure valid reset? Yes, almost all of them. For example: http://www.atmel.com/dyn/resou...oc4183.pdf http://www.sst.com/downloads/app_note/S72042.pdf DS89C430/450 datasheet, page 3, note 3 Richard Erlacher said:
Why do they all still claim that the old 10 uF cap to Vcc and external or internal 8k2 pulldown is all that's needed? I wouldn't claim that's true, but they do claim it works on their product. This is remnant of the original Intel datasheet, from which the "cloners" copy-pasted massively; which also states that this scheme depends on the "proper" powerup slew - and this statement (misquoted by you already as a general requirement on VCC) is repeated in variants in most of the related datasheets. Many '51 datasheets are known to be a crap in many respects anyway. Richard Erlacher said: Maybe not, but the likelihood of failing is incomparable to the RC, which is SURE to fail.
Are you saying that the circuit you've provided will always provide a valid reset, regardless of +5 supply behavior, and the AT89S52 will never corrupt its flash if that circuit is used? JW |



