Jump to content

nima

EstablishedMember
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About nima

  • Rank
    Newbrie
  1. Please take a look here: http://forum.sourceboost.com/index.php?s=&...ost&p=17634 Regards Dave Great! Thanks Dave!
  2. Any chance SourceBoost will support this device? I'm trying to convince the management to move from HITEC but I noticed this device is not supported. Thanks. nima
  3. The following need to be added to both 1827 pics: #define IESO_ON 0xFFFF // Internal/External Switchover mode is disabled #define IESO_OFF 0xEFFF nima
  4. The default signage of a 'char' is unsigned. A compiler command line option can be used to make the signage of a plain char to be signed. So I guess this is not your problem. Regards Dave Dave I figured the SPI problem out. SDO1 is kept low until data is transmitted after that it will stay high. Now the only other problem is the warning error saying hex file is too big even though in SourceBoost IDE the code size shows the following: Building CASM file Memory Usage Report =================== RAM available:384 bytes, used:193 bytes (50.3%), free:191 bytes (49.7%), Heap size:1
  5. The default signage of a 'char' is unsigned. A compiler command line option can be used to make the signage of a plain char to be signed. So I guess this is not your problem. Regards Dave Thanks for the response about the variables Dave. But no, that doesn't solve my problem with the SPI not working. Dave do you have any ideas I could try? Since this code works in HI-TECH but not in SourceBoost does that mean there could be a bug in SourceBoost? Anybody else running into this problem with the 1827 chip? I forgot to add this to my original post but whenever I import the hex file i
  6. Hi, I'm porting my code from HI-TECH and it works fine in HI-TECH but the SDO1 is not working correctly in BoostC. Whenever I enable SPI1 SDO1 goes to 0V instead of 5V. Also looking at the header file for 1827 I see all the variables are volatile char ssp1con1 @SSP1CON1; instead of volatile unsigned char ssp1con1 @SSP1CON1; is this correct? Here is the code I'm running: //Include files #include <system.h> #include "rep_batt.h" //#include "usart.h" #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> #pragma CLOCK_FREQ 8000000 //8Mhz #pragma DATA _CONFIG1, _FOSC_INTOSC
×
×
  • Create New...