| ??? 07/26/05 06:20 Read: times |
#98110 - I agree with this Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jan Waclawek said:
"Cables" to support this are IMHO the same "kitchenware" category than the homemade parallel programmers, see my comments in earlier posts. And today, there are too many such "cable" constructions around, failing at various situations because of the given reasons - the same situation than it was with parallel programmers maybe 5 years ago I agree with that 100%. Having dealt with this precise issue a little less than a year ago and seeing all the messages posted all over the Internet with similar problem, and at least two or three different programs/cables to ISP an AT89S8252, I'd say that the status of ISP cables today is just as random and unreliable as any old attempts to achieve parallel programming. And to make matters even more fun, the AT89S8253 is now the "replacement" part for the AT89S8252 but it uses a different ISP protocol, 4-byte SPI instead of 3-byte SPI and if I remember correctly they've inverted the polarity of SCK. I must say that having dealt with ISP cables with Atmel and also having done ISP with the Dallas 89C8420 and the TI MSC1210 via the UART, I much prefer the UART approach. What's the point of special cables when we already have a perfectly good RS-232 standard going? Regards, Craig Steiner |
