|
Has everyone seen the LPC2000 errata at: http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/acrobat/erratasheets/2105.pdf Interestingly, there is a new version of the boot loader (the on-chip code that resides in LPC2000) which is upgradeable using the Philips ISP utility. Details and files are here: http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/files/products/standard/microcontrolle rs/utilities/lpc2000_bl_update.zip It seems that the IAP software (in the boot loader) has some timing issues resulting in a possible 1 in 10 flash programming failure, particularly when the PLL is enabled and running > 12MHz. Note: this effects all methods of flash programming (i.e. via UART using Philips ISP or JTAG using Ashling PathFinder or other Debuggers) as these all call the IAP routines. I have personally tried the upgrade and it works smoothly using the Philips ISP utility; I 'm looking at implementing a PathFinder script for Ashling users to allow updating via JTAG HTH, Hugh @ <http://www.ashling.com/support/lpc2000/> http://www.ashling.com/support/lpc2000/ |
|
|
LPC2000 Erratta
Started by ●August 6, 2004
Reply by ●August 6, 20042004-08-06
|
Thanks Hugh, I'm currently running IAP's on a PLL using lpc2129's (version 1.53 bootloader). So far, no problems yet. I notice that the errata also applies to lpc's with bootloader versions below 1.52. It is possible that lpc's (bootloader 1.52 and above) won't experience this problem? Leighton --- In , "Hugh O'Keeffe" <hugh.okeeffe@a...> wrote: > Has everyone seen the LPC2000 errata at: > > http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/acrobat/erratasheets/2105.pdf > > Interestingly, there is a new version of the boot loader (the on- chip code > that resides in LPC2000) which is upgradeable using the Philips ISP utility. > Details and files are here: http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/files/products/standard/microco ntrolle > rs/utilities/lpc2000_bl_update.zip > It seems that the IAP software (in the boot loader) has some timing issues > resulting in a possible 1 in 10 flash programming failure, particularly when > the PLL is enabled and running > 12MHz. Note: this effects all methods of > flash programming (i.e. via UART using Philips ISP or JTAG using Ashling > PathFinder or other Debuggers) as these all call the IAP routines. > > I have personally tried the upgrade and it works smoothly using the Philips > ISP utility; I 'm looking at implementing a PathFinder script for Ashling > users to allow updating via JTAG > > HTH, Hugh @ <http://www.ashling.com/support/lpc2000/> > http://www.ashling.com/support/lpc2000/ > |
|
|
Reply by ●August 6, 20042004-08-06
|
Hello Leighton, The version of the bootloaders that do not have the improved timing behavior is different for the LPC210x and all other LPC2000 family members in the 64-pin or 144-pin package. For devices in the 64-pin package like yours, the updated version should be V1.63 or later. So, the bootloader you have could show the problem, however, as mentioned in the Errata Sheet it affects up to 10% of the devices ot in other words, 90%+ of the devices will never show this problem. The most critical event is an IAP call while running the device with max speed at hot temperature (could be 10% failure rate). The least critical running it at 10-12 MHz room temp (you will probably never see the issue). Look at this Errata like a patch from some big company for their Exploration software. In all likelyhood the devices that did not show the problems in a given enviroment will continue to work fine in the same enviroment. A change in enviroment, speed, temperature... could however trigger the misbehavior. So, if you have the opportunity to upgrade your bootloader version it is a good idea to do so, if not and your environment does not change, no sweat. Hope this helps to clarify the issue. Best regards, Robert --- In , "Leighton Rowe" <leightonsrowe@y...> wrote: > Thanks Hugh, > > I'm currently running IAP's on a PLL using lpc2129's (version 1.53 > bootloader). So far, no problems yet. > > I notice that the errata also applies to lpc's with bootloader > versions below 1.52. > > It is possible that lpc's (bootloader 1.52 and above) won't > experience this problem? > > Leighton > --- In , "Hugh O'Keeffe" <hugh.okeeffe@a...> > wrote: > > Has everyone seen the LPC2000 errata at: > > > > http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/acrobat/erratasheets/2105.pdf > > > > Interestingly, there is a new version of the boot loader (the on- > chip code > > that resides in LPC2000) which is upgradeable using the Philips > ISP utility. > > Details and files are here: > > > > > http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/files/products/standard/microco > ntrolle > > rs/utilities/lpc2000_bl_update.zip > > > > > > It seems that the IAP software (in the boot loader) has some > timing issues > > resulting in a possible 1 in 10 flash programming failure, > particularly when > > the PLL is enabled and running > 12MHz. Note: this effects all > methods of > > flash programming (i.e. via UART using Philips ISP or JTAG using > Ashling > > PathFinder or other Debuggers) as these all call the IAP routines. > > > > I have personally tried the upgrade and it works smoothly using > the Philips > > ISP utility; I 'm looking at implementing a PathFinder script for > Ashling > > users to allow updating via JTAG > > > > HTH, Hugh @ <http://www.ashling.com/support/lpc2000/> > > http://www.ashling.com/support/lpc2000/ > > > > > > |
|
|
Reply by ●August 6, 20042004-08-06
|
I just saw the lpc2129/2114 errata earlier. So, everything's clarified now. Updating the affected chipsets wouldn't be a problem. Thanks again, Leighton --- In , "philips_apps" <philips_apps@y...> wrote: > Hello Leighton, > > The version of the bootloaders that do not have the improved timing > behavior is different for the LPC210x and all other LPC2000 family > members in the 64-pin or 144-pin package. > > For devices in the 64-pin package like yours, the updated version > should be V1.63 or later. So, the bootloader you have could show the > problem, however, as mentioned in the Errata Sheet it affects up to > 10% of the devices ot in other words, 90%+ of the devices will never > show this problem. > > The most critical event is an IAP call while running the device with > max speed at hot temperature (could be 10% failure rate). The least > critical running it at 10-12 MHz room temp (you will probably never > see the issue). > > Look at this Errata like a patch from some big company for their > Exploration software. In all likelyhood the devices that did not show > the problems in a given enviroment will continue to work fine in the > same enviroment. A change in enviroment, speed, temperature... could > however trigger the misbehavior. So, if you have the opportunity to > upgrade your bootloader version it is a good idea to do so, if not and > your environment does not change, no sweat. > > Hope this helps to clarify the issue. > > Best regards, Robert > > --- In , "Leighton Rowe" <leightonsrowe@y...> > wrote: > > Thanks Hugh, > > > > I'm currently running IAP's on a PLL using lpc2129's (version 1.53 > > bootloader). So far, no problems yet. > > > > I notice that the errata also applies to lpc's with bootloader > > versions below 1.52. > > > > It is possible that lpc's (bootloader 1.52 and above) won't > > experience this problem? > > > > Leighton > > > > > > --- In , "Hugh O'Keeffe" <hugh.okeeffe@a...> > > wrote: > > > Has everyone seen the LPC2000 errata at: > > > > > > http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/acrobat/erratasheets/2105.pdf > > > > > > Interestingly, there is a new version of the boot loader (the on- > > chip code > > > that resides in LPC2000) which is upgradeable using the Philips > > ISP utility. > > > Details and files are here: > > > > > > > > http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/files/products/standard/microco > > ntrolle > > > rs/utilities/lpc2000_bl_update.zip > > > > > > > > > It seems that the IAP software (in the boot loader) has some > > timing issues > > > resulting in a possible 1 in 10 flash programming failure, > > particularly when > > > the PLL is enabled and running > 12MHz. Note: this effects all > > methods of > > > flash programming (i.e. via UART using Philips ISP or JTAG using > > Ashling > > > PathFinder or other Debuggers) as these all call the IAP routines. > > > > > > I have personally tried the upgrade and it works smoothly using > > the Philips > > > ISP utility; I 'm looking at implementing a PathFinder script for > > Ashling > > > users to allow updating via JTAG > > > > > > HTH, Hugh @ <http://www.ashling.com/support/lpc2000/> > > > http://www.ashling.com/support/lpc2000/ > > > > > > > > > |
Reply by ●August 7, 20042004-08-07
|
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:52:46 +0100 From: "Hugh O'Keeffe" <> > Has everyone seen the LPC2000 errata at: > > http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/acrobat/erratasheets/2105.p > df Wondrous! This version of the bootloader fixes *all* our IAP problems so far. All the unreliable boards we looked at yesterday were fitted with the new bootloader software and then worked perfectly. Thanks. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 23 80 631441, fax: +44 23 80 339691 web: http://www.mpeltd.demon.co.uk - free VFX Forth downloads |
|
|
Reply by ●August 7, 20042004-08-07
|
Wow, wow !! Philips claims that the bootloader is non-destructive from the app's point of view. So how can it be that we can download a hex file into the RAM, execute it and then, voila, there is a new bootloader written into the "read-only" boot section :-))) Rolf |
|
|
Reply by ●August 9, 20042004-08-09
|
:-) good point. The bootloader will not be erased using documented programming procedures. Because we saw the huge benefit of providing the self-updating bootloader to you our customers we just had to do it. Sort of Disclaimer: If you change anything in the bootloader, specifications of the device are no longer valid, programming might (most likely will!) fail, there is no support for questions related to self-modified bootloaders. In a nutshell, we highly discourage experimenting with the bootloader but if you have to, you are on your own! Philips_Apps --- In , "rhpascaldodo" <rh@e...> wrote: > Wow, wow !! > > Philips claims that the bootloader is non-destructive from the app's > point of view. So how can it be that we can download a hex file into > the RAM, execute it and then, voila, there is a new bootloader written > into the "read-only" boot section :-))) > > Rolf |
Reply by ●August 27, 20042004-08-27
|
Phillips_apps, I'm planning to update the bootloader on the lpc2114 chip that's running on a 14.7456 MHz Xtal. I only see frequency numbers provided for 10 MHz & 12 MHz that's supposed to go in Ram Buffer location 0x40000200. What's the safest value to put for 14.7456 MHz? Leighton --- In , "philips_apps" <philips_apps@y...> wrote: > Hello Leighton, > > The version of the bootloaders that do not have the improved timing > behavior is different for the LPC210x and all other LPC2000 family > members in the 64-pin or 144-pin package. > > For devices in the 64-pin package like yours, the updated version > should be V1.63 or later. So, the bootloader you have could show the > problem, however, as mentioned in the Errata Sheet it affects up to > 10% of the devices ot in other words, 90%+ of the devices will never > show this problem. > > The most critical event is an IAP call while running the device with > max speed at hot temperature (could be 10% failure rate). The least > critical running it at 10-12 MHz room temp (you will probably never > see the issue). > > Look at this Errata like a patch from some big company for their > Exploration software. In all likelyhood the devices that did not show > the problems in a given enviroment will continue to work fine in the > same enviroment. A change in enviroment, speed, temperature... could > however trigger the misbehavior. So, if you have the opportunity to > upgrade your bootloader version it is a good idea to do so, if not and > your environment does not change, no sweat. > > Hope this helps to clarify the issue. > > Best regards, Robert |
|
|
Reply by ●August 27, 20042004-08-27
|
0x3999 works fine. Richard --- In , "Leighton Rowe" <leightonsrowe@y...> wrote: > Phillips_apps, > > I'm planning to update the bootloader on the lpc2114 chip that's > running on a 14.7456 MHz Xtal. I only see frequency numbers provided > for 10 MHz & 12 MHz that's supposed to go in Ram Buffer location > 0x40000200. > > What's the safest value to put for 14.7456 MHz? > > Leighton > > --- In , "philips_apps" <philips_apps@y...> > wrote: > > Hello Leighton, > > > > The version of the bootloaders that do not have the improved timing > > behavior is different for the LPC210x and all other LPC2000 family > > members in the 64-pin or 144-pin package. > > > > For devices in the 64-pin package like yours, the updated version > > should be V1.63 or later. So, the bootloader you have could show > the > > problem, however, as mentioned in the Errata Sheet it affects up to > > 10% of the devices ot in other words, 90%+ of the devices will > never > > show this problem. > > > > The most critical event is an IAP call while running the device > with > > max speed at hot temperature (could be 10% failure rate). The least > > critical running it at 10-12 MHz room temp (you will probably never > > see the issue). > > > > Look at this Errata like a patch from some big company for their > > Exploration software. In all likelyhood the devices that did not > show > > the problems in a given enviroment will continue to work fine in > the > > same enviroment. A change in enviroment, speed, temperature... > could > > however trigger the misbehavior. So, if you have the opportunity to > > upgrade your bootloader version it is a good idea to do so, if not > and > > your environment does not change, no sweat. > > > > Hope this helps to clarify the issue. > > > > Best regards, Robert |
|
|
Reply by ●August 28, 20042004-08-28
|
Remember that the 210x has byte order reversed so the bytes you should enter at location 0x40000200 are: 9A 39 00 00 if you are using a 14745600 crystal. --- In , "Richard" <richas@y...> wrote: > 0x3999 works fine. > > Richard > > --- In , "Leighton Rowe" <leightonsrowe@y...> > wrote: > > Phillips_apps, > > > > I'm planning to update the bootloader on the lpc2114 chip that's > > running on a 14.7456 MHz Xtal. I only see frequency numbers > provided > > for 10 MHz & 12 MHz that's supposed to go in Ram Buffer location > > 0x40000200. > > > > What's the safest value to put for 14.7456 MHz? > > > > Leighton > > > > --- In , "philips_apps" <philips_apps@y...> > > wrote: > > > Hello Leighton, > > > > > > The version of the bootloaders that do not have the improved > timing > > > behavior is different for the LPC210x and all other LPC2000 > family > > > members in the 64-pin or 144-pin package. > > > > > > For devices in the 64-pin package like yours, the updated version > > > should be V1.63 or later. So, the bootloader you have could show > > the > > > problem, however, as mentioned in the Errata Sheet it affects up > to > > > 10% of the devices ot in other words, 90%+ of the devices will > > never > > > show this problem. > > > > > > The most critical event is an IAP call while running the device > > with > > > max speed at hot temperature (could be 10% failure rate). The > least > > > critical running it at 10-12 MHz room temp (you will probably > never > > > see the issue). > > > > > > Look at this Errata like a patch from some big company for their > > > Exploration software. In all likelyhood the devices that did not > > show > > > the problems in a given enviroment will continue to work fine in > > the > > > same enviroment. A change in enviroment, speed, temperature... > > could > > > however trigger the misbehavior. So, if you have the opportunity > to > > > upgrade your bootloader version it is a good idea to do so, if > not > > and > > > your environment does not change, no sweat. > > > > > > Hope this helps to clarify the issue. > > > > > > Best regards, Robert |
