I take it back... I see it now. I might have been preoccupied by this thinking that LPC210[123] and LPC210[456] are almost the same except for the RAM size and I was wrong.
Sorry for my last email. -Ananda On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Ananda Regmi <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 <[email protected]>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 >> [email protected] >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development >> > >
_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
