Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

18F26K42 support

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • longpole001
    started a topic 18F26K42 support

    18F26K42 support

    Hi chalres , have you an expected time frame for the support 18FxxK42 series

  • longpole001
    replied
    2 pics equals double the cost and efforts , better off just getting a a larger pic from the out set , microchips up and coming 8 bit chips line up look very average ,

    Leave a comment:


  • mpgmike
    replied
    Originally posted by longpole001 View Post
    surprised microchip are not got k42 series with 64pin or 80 pin chip in the planned pipelines for this year , bit disappointing
    Use 2 PIC18F47K42's & UART them? Well, it was a thought.

    Leave a comment:


  • longpole001
    replied
    surprised microchip are not got k42 series with 64pin or 80 pin chip in the planned pipelines for this year , bit disappointing

    Leave a comment:


  • mpgmike
    replied
    Got Vectored Interrupts working. I mostly copied from the Data Sheet. I don't understand quite all of the code, as I had to create a subroutine called Vectored_Interrupt_Init (as per the Data Sheet) and it uses NVM to create the Vector List. The UK forum said that process of using NVM not only applies to EEPROM, but also any non-volatile memory programming. Also, where the Data Sheet says to list the ISR Label, then "CODE" along with the address, that didn't work. I had to add "ORG" then the address one line above the vectored Label. Something to do with PBP I was told. Nevertheless, I have Vectored Interrupts working.

    Leave a comment:


  • mpgmike
    replied
    Thanks, got it, worked through some MPASM issues, got the obligatory Blinky LED Hello World, played with NCO, talked to an LCD,and want to play with those Vectored Interrupts. I spent a few hours last night reading the Help files you recommended. Immense help! I think I might almost know enough to get the Vectored Interrupts within the first hundred tries.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles Leo
    replied
    The latest version of PBP is always available at http://www.pbp3.com/download.html

    Leave a comment:


  • mpgmike
    replied
    Please let me know how to get this update. I haven't received any email, I found the listing on the MELabs web site, but with no download link. I WILL PLAY & REPORT BACK!! Already have a pair of PIC18F26K42 chips.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles Leo
    replied
    I'm dependent on others when it comes to the executable and compile time. I've spoken to the developer and he gives me the impression that it might could be improved slightly, but it will take a significant investment to find out. He has to convince me that it's worth the cost before I will take the case upstream for funding. So far, he hasn't done so. I think he doesn't really have a clue if it can be done or how to do it.

    If you're using the K42, make sure you review the K42 notes that I included in the installation. I opted not to assign default PPS pins for HPWM, so the command won't work if you don't define ports and pins (or set PPS and TRIS manually). My support feedback since adding the K40 indicates that the defaults cause more problems than they solve. I wish I had done it differently to begin with, but I am loath to change it and break existing user code.

    There are big differences in HSER defines in some circumstances, also. I had to disable parity defines, at least for now. Parity is now handled by the UART peripheral, so you set it up with SFRs.

    If you write Assembly for the K42 or K83, as in an interrupt handler, note the addition of the new instruction MOVFFL. The older MOVFF won't access SFRs. Took me a while to figure out why none of the hardware-based commands were working.

    The lesson I'm learning is that PBP shouldn't try to dumb-down these advanced chips. It increases effort and decreases clarity for the advanced user. If you're not comfortable in the Microchip datasheet, the K42 probably isn't the best choice. That being said, I think the chips are cool. I used a 47K40 in a project recently and loved it. The K42 is all that and a bit more.

    For the record, I ignored the new interrupt vector table. If you enable it, bad things happen. I intend to revisit it at some point.

    As always, let me know what I screwed up!

    Leave a comment:


  • longpole001
    replied
    did you get any inroads in to the compile time for large files taking a long time with microsoft

    Leave a comment:


  • longpole001
    replied
    well done charles to get it done over the xmas break

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles Leo
    replied
    I'm planning on working on it during the holidays when everything goes quiet.

    Leave a comment:


  • longpole001
    replied
    hi charles , have a project that the k42 would suit chip replacement upgrades , any current time frame for the support for this series ?

    Leave a comment:


  • longpole001
    replied
    yes that family of chips is worth a look as they have 12 bit adc , and for the pricing range being offered about $2.50aud per 50 as my normal vendor , is hard to look past them as suitable updates for other pics that attract higher pricing for simular offering in performace

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles Leo
    replied
    It's nearing the top of my list, but it's difficult to translate that into a meaningful time estimate. I'll do my best to get it moving.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X