Searching \ for 'DOS Command-line programming software for the Para' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: techref.massmind.org/techref/microchip/devprogs.htm?key=programming
Search entire site for: 'DOS Command-line programming software for the Para'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'DOS Command-line programming software for the Para'
1998\03\22@034056 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
As I've mentioned here before, Parallax seems to be completely unwilling to
provide technical information on the SX-Key interface protocol, despite having
claimed otherwise last fall at the Embedded Systems Conference.  Evidently
the money of people who use operating systems other than Windows 95 isn't good
enough for them.

Fortunately for you, the reader, this isn't just another message of my
complaints.  Someone has actually done something about it.

Loren Blaney has written SxProg, a program allowing the use of the SX-Key from
a DOS command prompt.  This makes it possible to use the SX-Key from batch
files, Makefiles, and the like, and is also very convenient if you need to
program many parts.

SxProg is available from my web site:
       http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/scenix/sxprog/

Given how many people on the list seemed enthusiastic about the Scenix part
before it was released, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more discussion
of it on the list lately.  Is anyone out there using it, or are Rich, Loren,
and I the only ones?

I was initially somewhat skeptical of the "virtual peripheral" concept that
Scenix and Parallax are promoting, and I'm still dubious of some of the code
size and CPU utilization claims from the Electronics Design article.  However,
having actually used the thing for a while, I've become convinced that the
virtual peripheral concept is actually quite useful.  The biggest drawback
I've found so far is trying to use two virtual peripherals that each want
a different interrupt rate.  If one rate is a simple multiple of the other,
it works fine.  Otherwise, it can be very tricky.

Cheers,
Eric

1998\03\22@075351 by Steve Baldwin

flavicon
face
> Given how many people on the list seemed enthusiastic about the Scenix
part
> before it was released, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more
discussion
> of it on the list lately.  Is anyone out there using it, or are Rich,
Loren,
> and I the only ones?

Getting the emulation part going would probably help.
I've had parts, an SX-Key and V0.2 for about a month, although I didn't get
a demo board (and V0.3) until a few days ago. I wrote a bit of code for it
and have a play but there isn't really much to get excited about or
discuss, since it's just like a PIC only faster. Oh. I did notice that if
you are using a sig gen for a clock source and bump the +20dB button, it
stops working permenantly. Oops ! :-)

I find it rather odd that Parallax have added so many instructions (macros)
in the assembler. One of the things I like about the PIC (and is used as a
selling point) is that there aren't very many instructions to remember. ie.
Less to get wrong.
I can understand it being useful for those that don't like changing between
micro families, but I'd really like to be able to turn that ability off. I
particularly don't like the ones that trash W.
Looks like Loren Blaney has a similar opinion of the assembler. The SxProg
looks like a useful tool.

> The biggest drawback
> I've found so far is trying to use two virtual peripherals that each want
> a different interrupt rate.

I was expecting something along those lines when they talked of virtual
peripherals. Looks like a small multi-tasking executive could be the next
challenge for the list.

Steve.

======================================================
 Very funny Scotty.  Now beam down my clothes.
======================================================
Steve Baldwin                Electronic Product Design
TLA Microsystems Ltd         Microcontroller Specialists
PO Box 15-680                email: spam_OUTstevebTakeThisOuTspamkcbbs.gen.nz
New Lynn, Auckland           ph  +64 9 820-2221
New Zealand                  fax +64 9 820-1929
======================================================

1998\03\22@102219 by peter

flavicon
face
Steve Baldwin wrote:
>
> > Given how many people on the list seemed enthusiastic about the Scenix
> part
> > before it was released, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more
> discussion
> > of it on the list lately.  Is anyone out there using it, or are Rich,
> Loren,
> > and I the only ones?

Are Scenix shipping the SX yet ?

Or is it still only avalible from Parallax ?


Peter Cousens
email: .....peterKILLspamspam@spam@cousens.her.forthnet.gr  phone: + 3081 324450, 380534
snailmail:  Folia, Agia Fotini, Karteros, Heraklion  Crete, Greece.

1998\03\22@154519 by Steve Baldwin

flavicon
face
> Are Scenix shipping the SX yet ?
>
> Or is it still only avalible from Parallax ?

Like most semi manufacturers, Scenix sell through a distributor, rather
than directly. Parallax is one of their distributors. They also happen to
be making development tools for the part. There's another distributor
mentioned on the Scenix web site but (not being in the US) it didn't mean
anything to me.
Parallax seem to specialise in the hobby/low volume market and I don't know
if they are going to target OEMs or if Scenix have other long term plans.
We'll have to wait and see.

Steve.

======================================================
 Very funny Scotty.  Now beam down my clothes.
======================================================
Steve Baldwin                Electronic Product Design
TLA Microsystems Ltd         Microcontroller Specialists
PO Box 15-680                email: stevebspamKILLspamkcbbs.gen.nz
New Lynn, Auckland           ph  +64 9 820-2221
New Zealand                  fax +64 9 820-1929
======================================================

1998\03\22@182551 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
I wrote about the Scenix part and virtual peripherals:
> The biggest drawback
> I've found so far is trying to use two virtual peripherals that each want
> a different interrupt rate.

Steve Baldwin <.....stevebKILLspamspam.....KCBBS.GEN.NZ> wrote:
> I was expecting something along those lines when they talked of virtual
> peripherals. Looks like a small multi-tasking executive could be the next
> challenge for the list.

What would have really helped here is if they had provided stack push and
pop instructions.  They could have used {MODE:W} for this, like the IREAD
instruction.

It would be difficult (if not impossible) to do a context switch from an
interupt handler, though, unless they also provided a way to get at the
other stacked registers.  If I'm reading the data sheet correctly, on
interrupts the PC is saved on a separate one-level interrupt stack, rather
than on the main eight-level subroutine stack.

Rich Ottosen has updated his video test pattern generator to run on the
Scenix clocked at 12*fsc.  This provides exactly 2730 instruction cycles
per horizontal scan line.  In order to use timer interrupts to control the
horizontal sync, he uses the timer with the prescaler set to 16.  This results
in 170 5/8 counts needed per line.  He is able to get this by putting a few
NOPs at the start of his interrupt routine, then writing the timer so that
the prescaler is cleared.

I was surprised that this works without any jitter in the horizontal timing.
Apparently even though the goto instruction in his main loop always takes
three cycles, apparently the timer interrupt latency is deterministic.  I
guess since the second and third cycles of the goto are just pipeline stalls,
the interrupt can happen on any cycle of the instruction.

I suspect the timer interrupt latency might not be deterministic if the
main code contained an IREAD instruction, since that takes four cycles, and
not all of the last three are pipeline stalls.

I'll put Rich's code on my web site soon.

Cheers,
Eric

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1998 , 1999 only
- Today
- New search...