No it is not..
LPC2103 is clearly listed as lpc2000_v1. See
lpc2000_v1 (older LPC21xx and LPC22xx)
When I use lpc2000_v1 and through telnet use command *flash info 0*, I get
the following which I think a proper representation of LPC2106 flash. I say
so because while loading through serial port using lpc2k_pgm, it seems to be
using sector size of 8kB.
#0 : lpc2000 at 0x00000000, size 0x00020000, buswidth 0, chipwidth 0
# 0: 0x00000000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 1: 0x00002000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 2: 0x00004000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 3: 0x00006000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 4: 0x00008000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 5: 0x0000a000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 6: 0x0000c000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 7: 0x0000e000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 8: 0x00010000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 9: 0x00012000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 10: 0x00014000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 11: 0x00016000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 12: 0x00018000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 13: 0x0001a000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 14: 0x0001c000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
# 15: 0x0001e000 (0x2000 8kB) protected
lpc2000 flash driver variant: 1, clk: 14765
But if I use lpc2000_v2, and use the same command I get the following:
#0 : lpc2000 at 0x00000000, size 0x00020000, buswidth 0, chipwidth 0
# 0: 0x00000000 (0x1000 4kB) protected
# 1: 0x00001000 (0x1000 4kB) protected
# 2: 0x00002000 (0x1000 4kB) protected
# 3: 0x00003000 (0x1000 4kB) protected
# 4: 0x00004000 (0x1000 4kB) protected
# 5: 0x00005000 (0x1000 4kB) protected
# 6: 0x00006000 (0x1000 4kB) protected
# 7: 0x00007000 (0x1000 4kB) protected
# 8: 0x00008000 (0x8000 32kB) protected
# 9: 0x00010000 (0x8000 32kB) protected
# 10: 0x00018000 (0x8000 32kB) protected
lpc2000 flash driver variant: 2, clk: 14765
In both cases though, it looks as if it is working. With lpc2000_v2, it is
erratic and I could not step through the code in eclipse. But with
lpc2000_v1, it seems more stable and I can step through the code in eclipse
also.
May be the strange issues you have described in your post Strange problem
with LPC2103, is because of this difference. It might solve your problem
because my problem kinda looked like yours.
-Ananda
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Freddie Chopin <freddie_cho...@op.pl> wrote:
> Ananda Regmi pisze:
> > Based on the manual should the flash bank command contain lpc2000_v1
> > instead of lpc2000_v2?
>
> ?
>
> LPC2103 is specifically listed as _v2...
>
> lpc2000_v2 (LPC213x, LPC214x, *LPC210[123]*, LPC23xx and LPC24xx)
>
> Moreover - this file works fine.
>
> 4\/3!!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openocd-development mailing list
> Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
>
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
