??? 07/03/04 01:10 Read: times |
#73563 - RE: Second opinion, DS89C420 or P89C669 Responding to: ???'s previous message |
"I've found in P89C669 errata sheet some problems with 9 bit UART "
The inadvertant change of RB8 and SBUF values does appear to be a bad bug. And since you seem to be needing 9-bit comm for your m_bus, could be a problem. Might need a more in depth analysis before deciding to drop the chip. "And here is also unpleasant possibility to erase the boot vector. " With a good supervisor chip, having brownout detection, this worry is a thing of past. You can search this forum for a document called No-Touch by Erik which addresses this issue nicely. If you ask me I will settle for the P89c669. Raghu |
Topic | Author | Date |
Second opinion, DS89C420 or P89C669 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Second opinion, DS89C420 or P89C669 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Second opinion, DS89C420 or P89C669![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 |