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
"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.
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
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
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".