| ??? 11/08/09 21:09 Read: times |
#170576 - why splitting hair? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
You say ISP does not mean "open protocol" because ICP is not published From what I've seen - including other microcontrollers - it appears that ISP is a more generic term, including all forms of serial, few-signal-few-pin programming. You know that I advocate the SPI-ISP and UART-ISP terms to distinguish between various forms of it, rather that to invent more TLAs :-) So, what I want to say is, that the fact a microcontroller is serially, in-circuit, in-situ and in-application programmable, does not mean, that the manufacturer publishes the necessary protocol - and, as an example, I brough up the SPI-ISP protocol called by NXP ICP, which is the only way how to program the lower-end LPC9xx-s. Although, in my personal and arguable opinion, it is a short-sighted policy. JW |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| reprogramming SM894051 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Link? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| reprogramming SM894051 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if you can't find the manufacturers website ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oh, come on! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The Datasheet says | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I think so too but it doesn't | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Unfortunately | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ISP does not mean it's public | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| HUH? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why splitting hair? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| IPC for the LPC900 doc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| and this is idiotic | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Majority requests probably not affected by datasheet quality | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| i beg to differ | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe no PC? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| writing to flash ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| empty chip too? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ICP is not (officially) documented | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
ICP and support | 01/01/70 00:00 |