| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bkamen
Joined: 07 Jan 2004
Posts: 1615
Location: Central Illinois, USA
|
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:38 pm |
 |
|
| StingzLD wrote: | So I am still getting the same error message, and I do not know why. May I ask what you are using to program and debug your chips? Are you using a PICkit 2 with the ICD header? I ask because when I looked at the PICkit 2 Header Specification on page 7 and 10, it is saying that I need the AC162055 for my PIC16F684. And as I have said earlier, I have never had to use one before; and I have been using this same chip the whole time. Is this something new? I am not sure what is going on, but it is confusing the hell out of me.
|
In the past, I've used the PICstart Plus, PICkit2, ICD2 and now mostly run with the ICD3.
Did you follow the appnote that talks about InCircuit Serial Programming? Without a Schematic we can't know how you hooked up your PIC to the PICkit2.
| Quote: |
Maybe I should just switch to a chip that doesn't need the header and has a lot more pin and gadgets than mine. Any objections to me ordering a couple PIC16F887s? Or is there a better suited chip out there? I just picked this one because it is loaded and seems to be a widely used chip, especially considering it is a direct replacement for the x877 (which I didn't realize until I went to look at it at Microchip and they are telling you to get the x887 instead). I am hoping that by switching to a chip that requires no header that I will be able to debug freely again. |
Any PIC that you want to use ICSP is going to need a "programming" header. Well, unless you're using a PICstart plus and are pulling DIP's to plug into that. 
_________________
Dazed and confused? I don't think so. Just "plain lost" will do. :D |
|
 |
PCM programmer
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 21708
|
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:51 pm |
|
|
He has been using smaller PICs don't have the internal circuitry to
support ICD hardware debugging. Microchip makes special versions of
these PICs that do have the circuit, and the pins (PGD and PGC) to allow
ICD debugging. These special "-ICD" PICs are only available on boards
built by Microchip called "ICD headers". The link in his post describes this.
He wants to ditch this requirement by switching to a PIC that has built-in
ICD support as a standard feature (i.e. 16F887 and indeed, most PICs). |
|
|
bkamen
Joined: 07 Jan 2004
Posts: 1615
Location: Central Illinois, USA
|
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:32 pm |
|
|
| PCM programmer wrote: | He has been using smaller PICs don't have the internal circuitry to
support ICD hardware debugging. Microchip makes special versions of
these PICs that do have the circuit, and the pins (PGD and PGC) to allow
ICD debugging. These special "-ICD" PICs are only available on boards
built by Microchip called "ICD headers". The link in his post describes this.
He wants to ditch this requirement by switching to a PIC that has built-in
ICD support as a standard feature (i.e. 16F887 and indeed, most PICs). |
That would do it.
-Ben
_________________
Dazed and confused? I don't think so. Just "plain lost" will do. :D |
|
|
StingzLD
Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Posts: 42
Location: Richmond, VA
|
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:43 am |
|
|
| So from the sounds of it, I am going to assume that the 16F887 is a good choice for a chip. If I still have problems after I receive them, I will let y'all know. Thanks for your help! |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in
