| ??? 10/11/07 06:36 Modified: 10/11/07 06:40 Read: times |
#145631 - on IDs, responsibility and decline of \'51 Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
I recall (not which or when) a chip where the required (parallel) algorithm changed a bit and the ID was not changed. Well that's really wicked - it defeats the very purpose of the ID... In this case of P89V51RD2, I think the main problem is not in assigning the same "written" designator to two different chips (ergo two different IDs) - it's OK as the chips are really different and the parallel programming algo might have changed a bit - the main problem is the apparent lack of communication from NXP to the device programmer manufacturers, or lack of responsivity of the latter... JW |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Philips --> NXP P89v51 problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| apparently yes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks Jan | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 89V51RD2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| yes, but that's because... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
ISP | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I know their answer... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Programmer Update | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| basically I agree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| on IDs, responsibility and decline of \'51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OK the answer to P89v51 Device ID | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I asked... | 01/01/70 00:00 |