??? 09/14/06 08:31 Read: times |
#124275 - can of worms Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Richard Erlacher said:
They're nice, but not necessary. I - maybe surprisingly - agree: not necessary, if you can tolerate ocassional troubles, or if you have complete control over the power source. I think I've formulated the FAQ so. Richard Erlacher said:
I've been using RC resets on microprocessors and microcontrollers as long as there have been such things, and, frankly, I've never encountered the sorts of difficulties that have been discussed here. Again, maybe surprisingly, I believe you. You might be more strict in choice of the power source, the parts etc. Certainly, your choice of parts and avoiding FLASH-based '51's (as Erik mentioned) play role in this. The general practice of using a reset IC and recommend to use them is because to stay at the safe side, no matter what. This is absolutely the same situation as with the "programming AT89Sxxx via a rusty nail". Believe me, if I have full control over the parallel port's behaviour and the powering of the AT89Sxxx and it's reset, it WILL work flawlessly. However, these things typically do go wrong, especially with newbies, and those are exactly them who don't have the experience to cope with it. They need something bomben-und-idioten-fest. It means, a reset IC and a sound programming tool. Richard Erlacher said:
Perhaps it's time this subject got a rigorous treatment here. I agree. I tried to be as rigorous (and liberal at the same time) as possible in the FAQ. Please, reread it and pay attention to the details. You are of course welcome to contribute, comment, suggest changes etc.etc. JW |