| ??? 10/05/07 20:12 Read: times |
#145495 - It wasn't a thorough test Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jan Waclawek said:
Richard Erlacher said:
...I found that the BBRAM at 0x0000 was corrupted. I didn't check the upper BBRAM's content. That only one byte out of 32k was corrupted, rings a bell, I just can't figure out what the hell the ringing means... - and I was thinking about it the whole day today, believe me. Don't you by chance remember what was the corrupted content? No ... I didn't take careful notes at the time. I was simply trying to get a "feel" for what was happening. My main concern was that things were happening at the MCU during RESET. And, what was the program you were running? Can you post it? Was it running from the BBRAMs themselves, or from internal FLASH, or any other resource? At the time I was using ULTRAMON51. JW It was more than one byte, Jan, and when I later checked, some of the time, perhaps previously overlooked, there were sometimes changes in the "other" BBRAM that didn't contain code, hence wouldn't have stopped the MCU from executing its monitor I was using NO internal FLASH, though there's plenty of it. I later learned that the upper (>0x7FFF) BBRAM got hurt from presumably the same fault when I had an EPROM in place of the lower BBRAM (jumpers allowed this). I was able to verify this by filling the upper half of "von-Neumanized" memory with zero, cycling power, and then examining it for changes. I didn't do this often enough to determine the nature of the changes (random, blocks, etc). RE |
