I got my program to a point where I needed to test so I ran it in the uVision simulator. It was flawless. I fired up my Nohau emulator and ran it on our new PC board. Perfect.
I burned a chip (89C51RD2) and popped it in the board...nothing.
Since I am now the only embedded guy in the shop I work alone I have no one to bounce ideas off. So I've come here.
The oscilloscope shows that timer_0 is running, and my ISR is OK because the watchdog strobe is happening and the timer values are being reloaded.
Has anyone seen this before? Do you have a suggestion of of path to find the differences between the simulated and emulated situation and running on the board?
Actually, I did run an exhaustive set of tests. The code at this point is either trivial or code that I am reusing from previous projects (I have been the Senior Firmware Engineer here since 1994). I asked the question here because I no longer have engineers working for me that I can brainstorm with. Like many USA companies we are now actively outsourcing almost everything so that we can lay-off long time employees.
I'm not a student looking for help with his homework (I'm 54 years old) or a new kid needing help writing the code (I've been writing software since 1974 and firmware since 1985). I've never before seen this situation. When it runs in the emulator it runs on the board.
I hope that didn't sound snarky, I didn't intend it that way.
.
I will try that right after the meeting I'm in ends. I appreciate the suggestion.
*if it ever ends* ;)
Emulator VS Chip Vcc - Right and stable, The Emulator may use its own. Reset - The emulator may ignore it. EA - The emulator may ignore it. On Board RAM and ROM - The emulator may use its own.
I will just assume it is the right chip.
I strongly suspect the RAM on the emulator is different than the RAM on the chip. That, however, leads me back to the simulator which, I assume, models the chips RAM closely.
I do think this is the correct track.
That, however, leads me back to the simulator which, I assume, models the chips RAM closely.
That assumption is not particularly safe, to put it mildly. Real static RAM tends to come out of power-up or reset containing random garbage, whereas the simulator starts with all-zeroes.
If anything, it would be the emulator that more closely models real RAM behaviour.
Real static RAM tends to come out of power-up or reset containing random garbage, whereas the simulator starts with all-zeroes. thus if the sizes in startup.a51 are wrong that would give the described effect.
Erik