| ??? 03/31/05 16:06 Read: times |
#90757 - Why memory "mapped"? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I am always puzzled, why the manufacturers try to make things more complicated than they need to be. But maybe just I am too stupid or missing something, please forgive me.
The "bigger" LPC9xx's are UART-programmable (I don't like the ICP/ISP paradigm, it is too confusing for me). This is accomplished sending intelhex-like records. So there already is a de-facto standard for storing value of UCFG1 (and also other configuration data); and it is as intelhex type 02. So tell me, please, why felt Philips and Keil it so that they created an another, and quite confusingly memory-mapped, "standard" for storing UCFG1??? Why couldn't the very same programming software interpret intelhex record type 02 the very same way they treat record number 00 address FFF0? Even better, I read on the FlashMagic forum, that Keil changed this address, please, why??? These controllers are complicated enough for themselves, why do they make it worse? (Sorry, I had a really hard day :-| ) Jan Waclawek |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Error Reading Flash Used | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| One more Hint | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Re | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Guessing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Isn't this blindingly obvious? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No, it is not. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OK - wrong size | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Ok, I will find out | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| config data | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| LPC900 Configuration Bytes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| LPC900 Config Bytes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Why memory "mapped"? | 01/01/70 00:00 |