Lpc2000

You have descended into rambling, confusion and irrelevancy again. I 
will post a specific copy of a draft to Philips on the newsgroup 
under a different subject title.

John Heenan

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "jayasooriah" <jayasooriah@...> wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> ATMEL fuse bits relating to boot block size are for purposes of
> determining the size of the block at the top of memory that is 
locked
> down as boot block, and which is used to determine address to branch
> to upon taking a reset.
> 
> I am the author of SAIL, the boot loader for ATMEL AVR series of
> processors  and can find more information about this at
> 
>   http://www.cse.unsw.edu/~jayas/esdk/sail.html
> 
> It would be ludicrous suggest one could write a boot loader for AVRs
> without intimate knowledge of ATMEL boot sector options and related
> fuse bits.
> 
> Your (what appears to be a revised) enhancement request requires the
> boot sector code to branch and then back.
> 
> As one who has been providing boot loaders for a variety of 
targets. I
> know for a fact that boot loader designers frown on such a request. 
> The biggest problem is state preservation when the boot loader is
> re-entered from user code.
> 
> A more sensible approach would be to have the methods implemented in
> the boot loader itself and let the user select like in the case of 
CRP.
> 
> Me thinks getting Philips to patch boot loaders for your production 
is
> quite queer.  Why patch when you can replace it.
> 
> Jaya
> 
> 
> --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "John Heenan" <l10@> wrote:
> > No. I guess you don't really get the point. I am not proposing 
> > replacing the exising boot loader, just providing an option 
to 'opt 
> > out' and continue booting elsewhere. The option to opt out and 
and 
> > where to opt out decided according to bit choices at the CRP 
flash 
> > location and before pin 0.14 is read. It would also be nice if we 
had 
> > a documented 'opt in' again facility which bypassed their own pin 
> > 0.14 test.
> > 
> > 
> > > 2/  The boot sectors (I have seen) appear pretty full.
> > 
> > See above. I am not suggesting it is used for any custoim boot 
loaders
> > 
> > > PS:  I am not saying the request is unreasonable.  I just 
cannot see
> > > how it can be met if LPC boot loader structure is to be 
retained.
> > 
> > 
> > For someone who is so full of praise for ATMEL your knowledge of 
> > their well known techniques is very weak. There also appears to 
be an 
> > industry wide consensus that unless you buy a lot of ATMEL 
product 
> > you will get zero support. The fact that as a non production 
oriented 
> > participant that you got any support from Philips is 
praiseworthy. If 
> > you want support without buying prodcut try moving to PICs, 
Microchip 
> > get consistent praise for their high level of support.
> > 
> > We know what is normal and we accept it. You don't.
> > 
> > With regard to REMAP issue, I have already indicated no changes 
are 
> > necessary and so exising parts could have their bootloaders 
upgraded.
> > 
> > Additionally if Philips did not want all their parts to ship with 
> > bootloader opt out options, they could provide us with a patched 
> > version which could be massaged into production bootloading.
> > 
> > John Heenan
>