| ??? 04/21/05 19:51 Read: times |
#92079 - sfr's Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Ok. I think it would be wise to find out what level of simulation support for the '420/430/440/450 enhancements are provided in this version. That's definitely rather old (well over a year), and it's quite possible that the support didn't exist back then. If you still have technical support, this is definitely worth a call to Keil. Otherwise, perhaps someone else can chime in, because I do not have this information. Unfortunately, my support has already ended. Before you jump on that 33 MHz oscillator idea, consider using an 8 MHz oscillator and using the 4x clock multiplication facility. As Kevin Self from Dallas pointed out to me last week, you can realize a nice reduction in EMI this way. Of course, if you have a system that is doing a lot of external bus accesses, much of that benefit disappears. I should certainly want that. The external bus access is limited to some I2C bit-banging (which is why I need the delay) and a LCD (which is another reason). As I recall from looking at the code I commented on earlier, you were also modifying bits in an SFR that had some effect on watchdog functionality. I do not believe that you were turning the watchdog on, but, as I said before, I didn't check in detail. I'll check up on it. /Thomas |
