| ??? 06/02/08 12:29 Read: times |
#155391 - why wouldn't be that? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Gary Peek said:
Am I the only one that finds the Erase Block part of the API Call Summary confusing? You might quite well be the only who attempts to use the Erase Block at all... As said multiple times, the T89C51Rx2/AT89C51yx2 don't need erasing at all. Gary Peek said:
Why is there a "program one data byte" in the middle of that section? Why shouldn't be? Much of the IAP API is simply taken over from Philips verbatim (you can see traces of it in the Temic documents), as Temic came out with the 'RD2 later and they wanted to capture some of the Philips customers. JW |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Now I can't get "Erase Block" to work, 89C51RC2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| PLEASE, pretty please | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Atmel 89C51RC2-UM Erase Block | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if there is no prefix on the chip... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| FLIP says it is an AT89C51RC2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oh, everybody remembers all previous posts, | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well I remember all of yours! :) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why wouldn't be that? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Have I misinterpreted the documentation? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| WHICH documentation? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| BAD documentation! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| oh, THAT one IS bad indeed! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I'd say this the reason why erase does not work... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No erase is needed, why did I think it was? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| but, Gary, we HAVE been talking about it... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I know, I have been missing that | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| when I came accross IAP for the first time... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not How - but the Before/After | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Run In Simulation | 01/01/70 00:00 |