| ??? 06/12/12 15:21 Read: times |
#187678 - Time to actually prove your logic and your delays Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Mandeep Singh said:
i have tried all That is definitely not true. You have not tried "all". You aren't even close to have tried "all". Unless "all" is some new drug I haven't heard about. reduced the delay Why have you reduced the delay? Maybe you need to increase it? The datasheet tells what delays you need - and my earlier post told you how to check the quality of your delay. So why can you not report back the results of your validation of the delay function? When you know what the delay does, you can then create (without a digital scope) a delay that fulfills the requirements specified in the datasheet. refered to the datasheet again and again What paragraph in the datasheet said that you need to reduce any delay? What delay does the datasheet say you should have? What are your actual delays, after having verified the function of your delay function? but am getting all the time same output As long as you do the wrong things, you can't expect to solve the problem. You seem to try random changes. Why not be methodical and check timing, and pin change sequences. Then you can post a check list what things you have verified. even i have tried to use SPI in MikroC...which didn't work as well.. Which doesn't tell you or us if you actually used the SPI functionality correctly or not. Or if their code was run at a suitable speed. Or if it's the correct pins on the processor that interfaces with the correct pins on the memory chip. Or if ... i tried to test 24c02 ....i was successful a bit with little problem. And what is "a bit". And what is "little problem". We don't know what tests you performed that you were successful with or what tests you did that you failed with. We don't even know if what results you saw was consistent with the results you were expected to see. but, here in this case am not getting any of the output.. And maybe you should not get any output. After all, you haven't shown us that your tests really proves that your program performs the required steps (at a suitable speed) to produce any output. MikroC compiles the code well Managing to compile code is irrelevant to if the code is correct or not. It's just a syntax test - the important thing is if the code requests the correct operations from the processor to get the required side effects you want/need. FYI the result am getting is all the leds glows !!!!!! We have already told you that if the communication is too fast, then you will see glowing diodes because your eyes aren't fast enough. The only thing you seem to have tested is to shorten your delays - does that sound like a good solution in case your code is already much too fast? |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| help me with 93c46 and at89s52---MikroC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What You Need to Do Yourself | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| need help - 93c46 using AT89s52 - mikroc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| MikroC is unwise choice | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| help me with 93c46 and at89s52---MikroC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| So check without scope - adjust code until testable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you have now 3 times asked help with 93c46/at89s52--MikroC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 93c46/at89s52--MikroC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| my suggestion | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You have already been given suggestions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| help me with 93c46 and at89s52---MikroC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use a proper Compiler | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Time to actually prove your logic and your delays | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ----thanks all for helping out | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| do you REALLY expect .... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| If you can't get MikroC to work ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| switching to keil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Example code on this website | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
why, oh why | 01/01/70 00:00 |