We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.
I have uVision 4 (not the latest version) and my company is evaluating a unit test tool. One of the processors that the tool needs to support is the C8051F580 processor from SiLabs. The unit test tool uses uVision as the tool to load the test files into and perform a uVision simulation using our processor setup. To begin the evaluation, I tried to use one of the Keil examples, build it in uVision, then run the simulator on the code. I believe that I've configured uVision correctly for the device but when I try to run the simulator, there are no selections under the "Peripherals" tab. Am I doing something wrong or is there some additional software that needs to be downloaded for uVision to perform the simulation. Note that I did do a search on the Keil sight and found the SiLabs driver (which I installed) but nothing under the knowledge base or the forums that talked about this issue. The example I used was the "CSAMPLE" code that built without issue.
I would have settled for just one (UART 1) which is not in the list. The description doesn't explain why none of the other peripherals are not provided (at least in my environment) nor does it explain why I don't have even one item under the peripherals tab on the IDE.
Even if none of the peripherals are simulated, is there some way that I can "cobble" something together so that I can get the unit test tool to simulate the code on the 'F580'?
Well, the debugger has a quite powerful programming language. So you might be able to write a debugger script that handles writes to the magic addresses representing the registers of that UART.
But the problem is that if the processor can't simulate the interrupt system, then you can't get a debugger script to generate an interrupt when simulating the reception of a byte of data to the UART.
If wanting to use the simulator, then it really is a very good idea to look twice at supported processors - are there any supported processor that is close enough to the real one, allowing you to simulate the majority of code?
If doing module testing, then you might be able to to module-test code that uses your serial port by finding another processor that have an identical serial port (while ignoring how similar all other peripherials are). no other processor have the same UARTs as the SILabs deviates (f3x-up) some UARTs on the SILabs derivatives (f0x-f2x) are 'standard'
Preferably, no processor should be selected, that doesn't have some proper hardware debugging interface. SILabs has the best "hardware debugging interface" available for a '51
Erik
"SILabs has the best "hardware debugging interface" available for a '51"
And in that case, it is quite logical to use real hardware. Must be lots of suitable development boards available.
At the risk of repeating myself...
It would be nice if there was a way to setup the environment to simulate the 'F580' :-)
As Keil has stated they haven't implemented a complete simulation, you'll want to be pushing your support contact about that.
SILabs has the best "hardware debugging interface" available for a '51
What exactly makes them best? What is missing in other '51 "hardware debugging interfaces"?
I intend contacting support but before going down THAT rabbit hole, is there something I could do? I assume that the simulation support for each of the processors is performed via a DLL. I am willing to spend some time trying to enable simulation for the processors that I need if I had some place to start. Are there any directions on how to accomplish this?
In the mean time, I would like to thank everyone for their input.
mention one, - with a link to the documentation of the associated software - and I'll answer
mention one
TI: CC1111
with a link to the documentation of the associated software I have no interest in a datasheet, that tell me nothing about debugging (other than maybe "can do". I need the "debugger manual"
OK, OK, should have seen that one coming
SILabs, at least, provide a free software interface to debug their chips, in addition to connect to Keil
At risk of speaking out of turn and in eriks defense, The SiLags hardware interface via the C2 or JTag interface (depending on the processor) is almost as good for support of step debugging and instruction tracing as supplied by more expensive means like ICE. The limitation on breakpoints is a little problematic and I would like them to provide a few more in future designs but this method is far superior to the old tried and true method of breakpoint support via opcode insertion.
Yes, and you dislike it so much
yes, I do, but some are 'forced' to use free software, and for those the SILabs stuff is reasonably good. It is well known that this forum is frequented by people from "no budget at all" to "make sure you buy the best"
As you see in my posts on this subject, my basic complaint is that with free software you can not threaten to withhold money if your issue is not resolved.
I, once were tasked to choose and buy a handful of compilers and you can not believe how fast the issues I raised to the various suppliers got resolved. Try that with free software.
the old adage "you get what you pay for" still holds.
Free means you have no leverage. You're beholden on the developer to care about your problem. As a developer I don't care about your niche requirement or change that doesn't impact my needs, especially when you haven't paid, don't want to pay, and are a whiner. If "free" and "open" attracts anyone it's whiny losers, who can't fix their own issues, and often living in their parent's basement as a result.