View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ipcas
Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 2
|
18f452 will not start |
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:42 am |
|
|
Hello,
I have a strange problem with the 18f452.
In some cases the processor will not start.
Our program is nearly 24k words (77%)
If we add only ONE Instruction to the Code (e.g. delay_ms), anywhere in the
program, the Processor will not start.
If we remove this instruction the processor starts absolutely reliable.
.
The startup code is:
0000: GOTO 5910
*
5910 is the Main() where we never get to.
Here is what we use:
PIC18F452 Rev 7
10Mhz Crystal
PLL
Very slow Power Up Front: 0 to 5 Volt in 11 ms
RC on MCLR R=47k C=100n (the same with MCLR on VDD)
PowerUpTimer
NO Watchdog
The Compiler is CCS Version 3.112
Please Help. We are very confused.
Regads |
|
|
Ttelmah Guest
|
Re: 18f452 will not start |
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:00 am |
|
|
ipcas wrote: | Hello,
I have a strange problem with the 18f452.
In some cases the processor will not start.
Our program is nearly 24k words (77%)
If we add only ONE Instruction to the Code (e.g. delay_ms), anywhere in the
program, the Processor will not start.
If we remove this instruction the processor starts absolutely reliable.
.
The startup code is:
0000: GOTO 5910
*
5910 is the Main() where we never get to.
Here is what we use:
PIC18F452 Rev 7
10Mhz Crystal
PLL
Very slow Power Up Front: 0 to 5 Volt in 11 ms
RC on MCLR R=47k C=100n (the same with MCLR on VDD)
PowerUpTimer
NO Watchdog
The Compiler is CCS Version 3.112
Please Help. We are very confused.
Regads |
I'd probably say 'get a new compiler'...
3.112, predates the fixing of many of the problems with the 18F family. I did a lot of development with the early compilers, on these chips, and had to implement several 'code bodges' to get things working. 99% of the problems were fixed by about V3.147.
I'd suspect that the extra 'length', is simply hitting another poblem. Perhaps either the internal program size limits (fixed in 3.140), or perhaps just leading to a pattern of code that hits one of the hardware problems with the chips. Though the 'main memory' ones have been fixed in the revision you have, there are still a couple of 'nasties', that could be occurring, and the fixes for these are only present in the latter compiler versions. Using a relatively recent compiler (but turning the new 'extended' optimisation down, which seems still to cause significant problems), I have a couple of programs using over 95% of the code space on these chips without problems.
I do wonder also about you relatively slow 'wakeup' design. The slow attack on the power supply, could lead to problems with the oscillator starting. Te PLL setup, is much more 'fussy' in this regard (and with regard to the crystal gain), than the normal oscillator. It might be worth trying the experiment of turning off the PLL, and seeing if the chip then runs (though at 1/4 speed). If so, it points to the area where th problem lies, though I cannot see that this type of problem should appear with increasing code size.
My biggest suspicion would simply be that the compiler has a problem.
Best Wishes |
|
|
Mark
Joined: 07 Sep 2003 Posts: 2838 Location: Atlanta, GA
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:57 am |
|
|
Ask CCS nicely if they will let you have the lastest version since the old one had problems. If they won't, send me the code and I'll compile it for you and send you back the hex file. If it works, then I would upgrade the compiler. |
|
|
rnielsen
Joined: 23 Sep 2003 Posts: 852 Location: Utah
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:24 am |
|
|
I've had a problem similar to this in using a delay_ms() command. My problem was that I had a timer interrupt, enable_interrupts(INT_TIMER1), listed but I had commented out the service routine for that timer and forgot to comment out the enable command. Every time I would hit a delay command the processor would freeze. Make sure you have a Interrupt Service Routine defined for each interrupt you have enabled.
I lost some hair over this one from pulling it out.
Ronald |
|
|
bdavis
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 86 Location: Colorado Springs, CO
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 1:35 pm |
|
|
I thought I read something about issues with using the ICD if the PLL was enabled. You may want to try running at 10MHz without the PLL to see if that works. |
|
|
ipcas
Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 2
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:20 am |
|
|
I have no Problem without the PLL. even with 25Mhz.
But, if i add an NOP at the Address 0 and then the JUM Main
anything is OK.
It seems that the cpu ignores the first instruction.
Is there a way to modify the Reset-Code in the -C- source ????
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 5:50 am |
|
|
With this statement you can move the reset vector:
Code: | #Build(reset=0x000) |
|
|
|
benres
Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 9 Location: Cambridge, MA
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:06 pm |
|
|
I just ran into this problem using the PLL mode with an 18F242. About 30% of the time, the processor doesn't start. I have good powerup time, and the 10MHz XTal is about 4.5v p-p (Vcc is 5 volts). Startup is perfect with the PLL disabled. I tried swapping crystals and caps, and it makes no difference.
Adding the line
#Build(reset=0x0002)
fixes the problem and now everything works great.
I have two questions:
1) Can anyone provide additional information about this bug and why this fix works?
2) Is there any reason to NOT add in this fix? If this is what it takes to make PLL work, then wouldn't you ALWAYS want this line of code?
Thanks,
- Ben
PS: I NEVER would have figured this out on my own.
PPS: A paralled thread is going on in the Microchip forum at: http://forum.microchip.com/tm.asp?m=49841&mpage=1&key=pll&anchor#49856 |
|
|
dyeatman
Joined: 06 Sep 2003 Posts: 1934 Location: Norman, OK
|
|
|
benres
Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 9 Location: Cambridge, MA
|
Still open: solution described is for different problem |
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:38 am |
|
|
Thanks for the response, but I'm having a different (and far more evil) problem. Yes, enabling and disabling the PLL doesn't take effect until the chip is power cycled. However, once the chip has been power cycled and the PLL changes are in effect, the chip should start every time. The issue you describe only happens once.
The problem I'm seeing is both intermittent and persistent. It's doesn't go away after a power cycle, and it only happens about 30% of the time.
We've now tested this "#build()" fix on about a dozen boards, and it fixes every one of them.
Before releasing this code, however, I'm hoping to get some confirmation this fix won't cause even larger problems. If this fix is indeed harmless, why isn't it part of the compiler? |
|
|
asmallri
Joined: 12 Aug 2004 Posts: 1635 Location: Perth, Australia
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:43 am |
|
|
Have a look at the .lst file for both versions and have a examine what is happening in low memory. It sounds like you observing a symptom as opposed to determining the root cause of the problem. If it is only a symptom you are playing with them some other manifestion of the root problem is likely to catch you out. _________________ Regards, Andrew
http://www.brushelectronics.com/software
Home of Ethernet, SD card and Encrypted Serial Bootloaders for PICs!! |
|
|
dyeatman
Joined: 06 Sep 2003 Posts: 1934 Location: Norman, OK
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:50 pm |
|
|
I just finished the third of three projects using the 18F452 (I use the ICDU40 for development along with an external 9.216MHZ oscillator and PLL enabled) and did not see any startup problems at all (except for the power cycle issue I stated earlier) so using an Xtal seems to have something to do with it. I wonder if this is a silicon revision issue. Have you contacted Microchip? |
|
|
PCM programmer
Joined: 06 Sep 2003 Posts: 21708
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:14 pm |
|
|
1. What are the capacitor values that you're using with your crystal ?
2. What is the Manufacturer and part number of your crystal ?
3. What is the silicon rev of your PIC ?
(ICD2 will display this in the MPLAB output window).
4. What is your version of the compiler ?
5. Post a small test program that demonstrates the problem.
Show us exactly how it fails. (ie., "it fails to execute this printf
statement properly. I only see the first three characters").
Show all compiler directives and pre-processor statements.
ie., #fuses, #use delay(), etc. |
|
|
benres
Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 9 Location: Cambridge, MA
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:08 am |
|
|
I posted some additional information, .C .LST and .HEX files with and without this "#build()" fix. This post includes crystal specs, rev, version, etc.
http://web.media.mit.edu/~benres/picbug/
I also looked for older errata, and this is the closest I found:
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/80129g.pdf
Testing shows this "#build()" fix to be stable and have no other adverse effects. Yet, strangely, I'm still not comfortable closing this bug. I'd like to have a better understanding of why this fix works, and if there's any reason to not include it in ALL code.
Thanks,
- Ben |
|
|
asmallri
Joined: 12 Aug 2004 Posts: 1635 Location: Perth, Australia
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:10 pm |
|
|
I tried downloading this link but received a page not found error:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~benres/picbug/test_noFix.lst
I have a couple of hundred of these PICs in the field - Multiple applications, copletely different code sets. Not one of these PICs has a NOP at location 0 and none of them have the problem you describe.
If the problem is with the hardware then I would be looking around the power on reset circuitry. Failing that a code bug either introduced by the application software or the compiler. _________________ Regards, Andrew
http://www.brushelectronics.com/software
Home of Ethernet, SD card and Encrypted Serial Bootloaders for PICs!! |
|
|
|