All, We are designing a "loader" for field firmware updates. Unfortunately we do not have the code space (P89C668) to have two sets of code in on-chip flash. Therefore we will use a scheme where we have the loader code located in sector one and all the ISRs in sector zero as the loader will use interrupts. The rest of the application will be in sectors 2 and up. The loader will erase the upper sectors and program the new code there. It will then erase sector zero and reprogram the vector table and the ISRs. Block one, the loader, will remain unchanged. Questions: I think I can locate the code in sector one and the ISRs in sector zero using user classes. I have done this with some ARM code in uVision. How can I be sure that the loader will have all the run-time modules it needs in sector zero? In other words, I cannot have the loader calling code in sectors that have been erased. It will have to be completely self contained except for the ISRs. Is this a reasonable plan? Anyone have a better way to do this? Rich
DO visualize wha will happen with your scheme if power fail at any time during the process. I have seen more dead chips due to this than anything else. If you decide to go ahead with a scheme where such can happen, at least socket your processor. Erik
Without the space to duplcate the code there is not much option.
"Jon made a comment one time that stated that you and Andy are two of only a handful of people who really understand this micro." I think he actually said: "There are only 4 developers in the world who understand and get benefit from PDATA (Andrew, Graham, Drew, and Eric) :-)" http://www.keil.com/forum/docs/thread3882.asp
All, I know this thread is several months old, but it has recently provided me a technique for our BootLoader to use, but there is an issue to be considered. First, Bob, thank you very much, this is a cleaver techique and to the best I can invision so far, it appears to be solid. This will allow us to have ISR's in the BootLoader. We will be loading this FakeInt into sector 0 during manufacturing setup and it will never change. The extra 256 bytes in sector 0 will also store some constant board information (serial number, ...). The issue: We found that when you perform a type cast of a float, the F0 bit will get reset back to 0. I contacted Keil support on this issue and they confirmed that F0 is used by their libraries. They referred me to this support page http://www.keil.com/support/docs/2893.htm , which references using UD:F1 as a bit for users to safely use. Danny
"it would be nice if you would share your wisdom rather than scorn." The problem is that you have achieved the impossible. If you had admitted earlier in the thread that it couldn't be done everything would have been fine, but instead you've had the temerity to post a solution. Shame on you!
>i>Q: what (re)set F0? A:DUH! If it is a InBootLoad bit, the BootLoader must have to set it, right? .... it would be nice if you would share your wisdom rather than scorn." Now, Stefan I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in this thread before my question whare it is stated that F0 is "a InBootLoad bit". I suggest you save your bile for those that get p***ed off when the one that try to help does not have ESP to percieve what is not stated in the question. Erik
Note This message was edited because of rude or abusive language.
"Now, Stefan I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in this thread before my question whare it is stated that F0 is "a InBootLoad bit"." Uh, ok - from Bob's first post: "The actual interrupt code uses the same scheme that RTX uses ... ie. we set a bit (RTX uses F0) to indicate that we are in the boot."
scheme that RTX uses ... ie. we set a bit (RTX uses F0) this states that "we" use "a bit" and it states that RTX uses F0 WHERE does it state which bit "we" use? Erik I have no problem asking, I just have a problem when the one that ask for help get p***ed at me because he can not express himself clearly. The fact that you, Stefan, immediately jump on the wagon does not make it any better.
"WHERE does it state which bit "we" use?" Well, taking the quote as a whole I think it's pretty clear. Chopping the quote up into little bits is bound to suck out all the meaning, a favourite technique for trying to find non-existent support for one's argument. Anyway, this is all an irrelevant smokescreen. What Bob was complaining about was not your failure to understand what he said, but your insistance in your previous posts that what he has done could not be achieved. "The fact that you, Stefan, immediately jump on the wagon does not make it any better." I waited nearly ten months. "I have no problem asking, I just have a problem when the one that ask for help get p***ed at me because he can not express himself clearly." Oh dear, you're all confused again. The one who 'got p***ed' at you was not the person asking for help, it was the one who offered a solution but was treated with scorn.
"WHERE does it state which bit "we" use?" Well, taking the quote as a whole I think it's pretty clear I use soap, and so does joe who uses Dial. Does that tell you which soap I use. Erik
"I use soap, and so does joe who uses Dial. Does that tell you which soap I use." Is this supposed to be an analogy? I don't really know why you're obsessing about this F0 thing, I've never had any issue with it. However, as you seem determined to flog it to death: This is what the chap said: "The actual interrupt code uses the same scheme that RTX uses ... ie. we set a bit (RTX uses F0) to indicate that we are in the boot." He then gave a code snippet with the following line: "Jnb F0,$+5" Frankly I cannot see what you difficulty is in understanding this, and was quite surprised when you challenged me out of the blue to quote it.
I don't really know why you're obsessing about this F0 thing, I've never had any issue with it. However, as you seem determined to flog it to death: I am not "obsessing about this F0 thing", I am referring to the fact that the posters inability to post clearly and his reaction to my lack of ESP made him post: DUH! If it is a InBootLoad bit, the BootLoader must have to set it, right? ..... If that is so, and you are a frequent supplier of info in this forum ... it would be nice if you would share your wisdom rather than scorn. which you decided to repeat for no other purpose than to find another way to show how "humane" or whatever you are compared to me. Anyhow, I suggested in another thread that you stop challenging me on non-trechnical issues so i can stop responding to your crap ("your crap" does NOT refer to your technical contributions which, generally, seem quite qualified) Erik
"Anyhow, I suggested in another thread that you stop challenging me on non-trechnical issues so i can stop responding to your crap" In the threads you are referring to I responded to posts by people other than yourself. In neither response did I make any reference to you. You are the one who has initiated our exchange of posts in both these threads, the topic of which has been dictated by you, and which, I might add, has not exactly been technical. You are the one with the power to decide whether you want to post or not. Use it!
Gentlemen, While this is soooooo entertaining, perhaps, at this point in the conversation, it should be taken offline. Rich
richard, see my post in other thread Erik
But, of course, if Stefan, as suggesated before and now again, used e-mail you goys would not see how great he was. Erik
"But, of course, if Stefan, as suggesated before and now again, used e-mail you goys would not see how great he was." Erik, this sort of comment only serves to make you look foolish. Aside from anything else, how could I email you without knowing your email address?
Aside from anything else, how could I email you without knowing your email address? since you evidently do not know how to google, here it is: erikm@digrec.com
since you evidently do not know how to google Oh, I am sorry. That should have been: since you ask I will save you the trouble of looking it up, here it is: erikm@digrec.com Coddly enough? As you see, in the above there is no help for next time, just a tide you over. In the above post a method to save the waiting for a response next time such came up was included. as I say "you do it your way, I do it mine, jusr stop telling me that your way is the only way" Erik
"since you evidently do not know how to google, here it is: erikm@digrec.com" Try googling for my email address and let us know how you get on.
"as I say "you do it your way, I do it mine, jusr stop telling me that your way is the only way"" But Erik - this is precisely what you do. You have fixed opinions on what is right and what is wrong, and you express these opinions as though they were facts. In this particular thread you went a step further and stated that something was impossible to achieve, because you could not see a way to achieve it. When someone else pointed out that it could be achieved you behaved in a very hostile fashion, still adamant that you were correct. Try re-reading Jay's post elsethread and you will see that I am not unique in finding this annoying. It is one thing adopting an abrasive style of posting and quite another ridiculing someone when they are correct.
as promised: If you have anything to say about my expressions/language or whatever non-technical e-mail me. I will not pollute the forum with responses to your crap. Erik
Try googling for my email address and let us know how you get on. what on earth does my ability to google for your e-mail address have to do with your ability to google for mine. You may be bashful about yours, mine is all over Erik
"what on earth does my ability to google for your e-mail address have to do with your ability to google for mine. You may be bashful about yours, mine is all over" The point, as you have now discovered, is that I don't post my email address on websites as I prefer not to receive spam. It did not occur to me that you would post yours with such reckless abandon. This doesn't make me 'bashful' - I think 'normal' would be a more appropriate word.
Should I slash my wrists now, or wait till y'all start arguing about who has a more prominent web presence? Rich
sorry, did not see who it was that posted. wait till y'all start arguing about who has a more prominent web presence? No, I am trying to stop the non-technical exchanges, but evidently Stefan does not want to. I have chosen to answer all non-technical posts from Stefan in the above manner, if you have a better way that still allow me not to let his crap go totally unanswered, pray tell. Just I get e-mails every week from people seeking '51 help that found my e-mail address without any trouble. Thus in the line of e-mailing someone it seems natural to take a peek at the web. The fact that someone has decided not to let an e-mail address be available should not make that person assume that everybody does the same. Thus "what on earth does my ability to google for your e-mail address have to do with your ability to google for mine." Erik PS some fora allow you to reveal your e-mail address if willing, evidently the Keil forum does not.
The point, as you have now discovered, is that I don't post my email address on websites as I prefer not to receive spam A good spam filtering software takes care of that. With that in place it is easy to let those that have a genuine interest in e-mailing you know your address. The above I consider "technical" I had a comment on It did not occur to me that you would post yours with such reckless abandon but to get that you will need to adhere to: If you have anything to say about my expressions/language or whatever non-technical e-mail me. I will not pollute the forum with responses to your crap. Erik
"sorry, did not see who it was that posted." And neither did you read the post before responding. You wouldn't get yourself into these sort of situations if you spent a little more time thinking before posting.
And neither did you read the post before responding. I most certainly did. It may be that this is case where "if I heard what you thought you said" applies. If you, as you suggest I do, read the post, you would see that what I discussed was not "who has prominent web presence" but reasons for having it and reasons for not having it which both are valid. Leading up to: The fact that someone has decided not to let an e-mail address be available should not make that person assume that everybody does the same which I consider a valid point. Erik PS please do not slash your wrists, I, for one, will not "start arguing about who has a more prominent web presence".
View all questions in Keil forum