Well I would replace the 8720 with the 8722 if I had a choice, however I am working on an existing design which uses a 8720, so I am forced to use 8720 and PORTD. I would have changed the port as well, but I no choice.
Well I would replace the 8720 with the 8722 if I had a choice, however I am working on an existing design which uses a 8720, so I am forced to use 8720 and PORTD. I would have changed the port as well, but I no choice.
The '8722 is pin compatible and software compatible with the '8720 and it's only got a couple of different registers to worry about. I would think it would be an easy replacement. And removing an TQFP isn't all that hard, if you do it one pin at a time (at least that's what they teach in the class I just got back from).
Well I guess if I can't get it working soon, I'll most probably do that. Thanks, please let me know if anyone else knows what im doing wrong.
We could still compile a HEX file with PBP 2.47 to see what happen?
Unfortunately i don't have those on hand... out of stock and there's no plan around them soon. Even if it was the case....
http://www.microchip.com/stellent/id...ct1=PIC18F8720
Steve
It's not a bug, it's a random feature.
There's no problem, only learning opportunities.
I found the problem! So surprising enough, PORTD needs to be driven at more current, I replaced the 10K resistor arrays with 1.5K resistor and now it seems to be working fine. But really these CMOS inputs should not need this much current. Just thought you guys would be curious. Thanks!
Bookmarks