Lpc2000

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "lpcarmed" <lpcarmed@g...> wrote:
> 
> I had issues with 115K until I replaced the Xtal with a 14.7456MHz
> one. Also, the lpc21isp.c from Martin Maurer is much more reliable.
> Big plus using it you can customize, even to the extent of
> automatically updating the bootlodaer if you wish.



Hi - can you email me a copy...I'd like to take a look.

Thanks

Jane.

> 
> --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Robert Adsett <subscriptions@a...>
wrote:
> > At 07:15 PM 1/8/05 +0000, you wrote:
> > >I'll take a look next week on the actual data quality being received
> > >transmitted at the CPU. I agree with you, from the table in the user
> > >manual for the LPC2106 you can run at 115200 at 12.288 MHz, so at
> > >12MHz even though we'll probably have a small percentage error per
> > >bit, we should still be OK.
> > 
> > I think one of us is reading the wrong line.  I see 12.288 MHz
> topping out 
> > at 38400.
> > 
> > What is missing is a description of what is limiting the match so
> that it 
> > could be determined for the actual crystal used.  I expect it's a
> divisor 
> > issue.
> > 
> > If we knew what it was it should be straightforward to figure out
which 
> > baudrates will match (and maybe even switch crystals to meet
> multiple neeeds).
> > 
> > Robert
> > 
> > 
> > " 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself.  There are always restrictions,
> > be they legal, genetic, or physical.  If you don't believe me, try to
> > chew a radio signal. "
> > 
> >                          Kelvin Throop, III