Sign in
Search LPC900_users
Subscribe to LPC900_users
Ads
Discussion Groups
Discussion Groups | LPC900 | So spoke Philips
Find help, specifications and source code for the LPC900. The LPC900 challenges Microchip and AVR based on the worlds most popular 8-bit architecture the 80C51. With a 2-clock core the LPC900 series is a high performance, very flexible and low cost 8-bit microcontroller family. Designers using or interested in these devices are encouraged to share their know-how and ask questions.
So spoke Philips - AVS Electronics - Sep 23 5:26:00 2005
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: In reply to your question/comment
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:19:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Philips Semiconductors Support Application
<do_not_reply@do_n...>
Reply-to: do_not_reply@do_n...
To: ...omissis...
*** Please do not reply to this message ***
If you have a follow up to this question please go to :
http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/support/form.php?followUp=39307&user=...omissis...
========================================
|| Answer to Question 39307 from Philips Semiconductors
|| 09/22/05 (09:49:34)
||
|| http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/support/
========================================
...omissis...
On above date you submitted question with ID 39307
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question:
Hello
I am working on a project with LPC925 micros. Prior to start, I read
some posts on 8051-related Internet forums, and I saw some complaints
about the micro behaviour when his supply voltage falls below a certain
critical threshold (e.g. due to a brief AC-mains break).
The fact is: the micro runs with corrupted registers, in particular
the Program Counter, instead of being in a safe reset state.
Can you explain me the situation, and workarounds?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philips Semiconductors answer:
Thank you for your interest in Philips Semiconductors!
The problem you are describing is caused when the part gets an
incomplete reset (the voltage goes down below the voltages where the
brown detectors work, but not within a few tenths of a volt from
ground.) As a result the program counter can get corrupted. If you use
a Watchdog timer to reset the part if the program counter runs away,
this should not be a problem. The other solution is to use an external
reset supervisor.
Regards,
Jim E. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail is sent to you from the website of Philips Semiconductors
Please do not reply to this message.
(You need to be a member of LPC900_users -- send a blank email to LPC900_users-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Subject: Re: In reply to your question/comment
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:19:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Philips Semiconductors Support Application
<do_not_reply@do_n...>
Reply-to: do_not_reply@do_n...
To: ...omissis...
*** Please do not reply to this message ***
If you have a follow up to this question please go to :
http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/support/form.php?followUp=39307&user=...omissis...
========================================
|| Answer to Question 39307 from Philips Semiconductors
|| 09/22/05 (09:49:34)
||
|| http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/support/
========================================
...omissis...
On above date you submitted question with ID 39307
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question:
Hello
I am working on a project with LPC925 micros. Prior to start, I read
some posts on 8051-related Internet forums, and I saw some complaints
about the micro behaviour when his supply voltage falls below a certain
critical threshold (e.g. due to a brief AC-mains break).
The fact is: the micro runs with corrupted registers, in particular
the Program Counter, instead of being in a safe reset state.
Can you explain me the situation, and workarounds?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philips Semiconductors answer:
Thank you for your interest in Philips Semiconductors!
The problem you are describing is caused when the part gets an
incomplete reset (the voltage goes down below the voltages where the
brown detectors work, but not within a few tenths of a volt from
ground.) As a result the program counter can get corrupted. If you use
a Watchdog timer to reset the part if the program counter runs away,
this should not be a problem. The other solution is to use an external
reset supervisor.
Regards,
Jim E. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail is sent to you from the website of Philips Semiconductors
Please do not reply to this message.
(You need to be a member of LPC900_users -- send a blank email to LPC900_users-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: So spoke Philips - lpc2100_fan - Sep 24 16:59:00 2005
Hi,
you describe a problem that is listed in the Data Sheet and in the
Errata Sheet. While I agree that this can be an issue for some
applications, the Errata Sheet (April 2004) says, that during a power
cycle the voltage has to come down to 0.2V.
Don't get me wrong, this is not a very good spec but the proposed work
around with the watchdog works just fine. The other work around would
be a pull down size dependend on your other components to provide
"drainage" for existing charges. Unfortunate side effect, increased
power consumption, in particular during power saving modes often not
acceptable.
All in all, having the problem Philips did the right thing,
documenting it and providing work around solutions. Seems you
expected something else with your subject "So spoke Philips" because
Philips spoke so a long time ago.
Bob
--- In lpc900_users@lpc9..., "AVS Electronics" <suppgrg@a...>
wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: In reply to your question/comment
> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:19:14 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Philips Semiconductors Support Application
> <do_not_reply@s...>
> Reply-to: do_not_reply@s...
> To: ...omissis...
>
> *** Please do not reply to this message ***
>
> If you have a follow up to this question please go to :
>
http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/support/form.php?followUp=39307&user=...omissis...
>
> ========================================
> || Answer to Question 39307 from Philips Semiconductors
> || 09/22/05 (09:49:34)
> ||
> || http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/support/
> ========================================
> ...omissis...
> On above date you submitted question with ID 39307
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Question:
> Hello
> I am working on a project with LPC925 micros. Prior to start, I read
> some posts on 8051-related Internet forums, and I saw some complaints
> about the micro behaviour when his supply voltage falls below a certain
> critical threshold (e.g. due to a brief AC-mains break).
> The fact is: the micro runs with corrupted registers, in particular
> the Program Counter, instead of being in a safe reset state.
> Can you explain me the situation, and workarounds? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Philips Semiconductors answer:
> Thank you for your interest in Philips Semiconductors!
>
> The problem you are describing is caused when the part gets an
> incomplete reset (the voltage goes down below the voltages where the
> brown detectors work, but not within a few tenths of a volt from
> ground.) As a result the program counter can get corrupted. If you use
> a Watchdog timer to reset the part if the program counter runs away,
> this should not be a problem. The other solution is to use an external
> reset supervisor.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim E. >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail is sent to you from the website of Philips Semiconductors
> Please do not reply to this message.
(You need to be a member of LPC900_users -- send a blank email to LPC900_users-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
you describe a problem that is listed in the Data Sheet and in the
Errata Sheet. While I agree that this can be an issue for some
applications, the Errata Sheet (April 2004) says, that during a power
cycle the voltage has to come down to 0.2V.
Don't get me wrong, this is not a very good spec but the proposed work
around with the watchdog works just fine. The other work around would
be a pull down size dependend on your other components to provide
"drainage" for existing charges. Unfortunate side effect, increased
power consumption, in particular during power saving modes often not
acceptable.
All in all, having the problem Philips did the right thing,
documenting it and providing work around solutions. Seems you
expected something else with your subject "So spoke Philips" because
Philips spoke so a long time ago.
Bob
--- In lpc900_users@lpc9..., "AVS Electronics" <suppgrg@a...>
wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: In reply to your question/comment
> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:19:14 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Philips Semiconductors Support Application
> <do_not_reply@s...>
> Reply-to: do_not_reply@s...
> To: ...omissis...
>
> *** Please do not reply to this message ***
>
> If you have a follow up to this question please go to :
>
http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/support/form.php?followUp=39307&user=...omissis...
>
> ========================================
> || Answer to Question 39307 from Philips Semiconductors
> || 09/22/05 (09:49:34)
> ||
> || http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/support/
> ========================================
> ...omissis...
> On above date you submitted question with ID 39307
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Question:
> Hello
> I am working on a project with LPC925 micros. Prior to start, I read
> some posts on 8051-related Internet forums, and I saw some complaints
> about the micro behaviour when his supply voltage falls below a certain
> critical threshold (e.g. due to a brief AC-mains break).
> The fact is: the micro runs with corrupted registers, in particular
> the Program Counter, instead of being in a safe reset state.
> Can you explain me the situation, and workarounds? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Philips Semiconductors answer:
> Thank you for your interest in Philips Semiconductors!
>
> The problem you are describing is caused when the part gets an
> incomplete reset (the voltage goes down below the voltages where the
> brown detectors work, but not within a few tenths of a volt from
> ground.) As a result the program counter can get corrupted. If you use
> a Watchdog timer to reset the part if the program counter runs away,
> this should not be a problem. The other solution is to use an external
> reset supervisor.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim E. >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail is sent to you from the website of Philips Semiconductors
> Please do not reply to this message.
(You need to be a member of LPC900_users -- send a blank email to LPC900_users-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: So spoke Philips - Jan Waclawek - Sep 26 2:52:00 2005
IMHO stating "reset is flawed" and "workarounds are available" is
nice,
but I would also expect upgrades to the chips with corrected known
problems. I see nothing so far (although the 932 has 2nd edition already).
What is the point of having a tiny chip when a bunch of additional
circuitry around is required?
WD is no workaround as it takes time while it kicks in and harm can be
done until then.
Requiring "proper power supply (shutoff)" is useless as was useless
claiming "for reset a cap is enough if power rises fast enough" at older
'51s. It's good for toys but completely wrong for anything more serious.
This flaw can easily bury this otherwise interesting family.
Personal view, arguable.
Jan Waclawek
lpc2100_fan wrote:
> All in all, having the problem Philips did the right thing,
> documenting it and providing work around solutions. Seems you
> expected something else with your subject "So spoke Philips" because
> Philips spoke so a long time ago.
(You need to be a member of LPC900_users -- send a blank email to LPC900_users-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
but I would also expect upgrades to the chips with corrected known
problems. I see nothing so far (although the 932 has 2nd edition already).
What is the point of having a tiny chip when a bunch of additional
circuitry around is required?
WD is no workaround as it takes time while it kicks in and harm can be
done until then.
Requiring "proper power supply (shutoff)" is useless as was useless
claiming "for reset a cap is enough if power rises fast enough" at older
'51s. It's good for toys but completely wrong for anything more serious.
This flaw can easily bury this otherwise interesting family.
Personal view, arguable.
Jan Waclawek
lpc2100_fan wrote:
> All in all, having the problem Philips did the right thing,
> documenting it and providing work around solutions. Seems you
> expected something else with your subject "So spoke Philips" because
> Philips spoke so a long time ago.
(You need to be a member of LPC900_users -- send a blank email to LPC900_users-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: So spoke Philips - AVS Electronics - Sep 26 3:43:00 2005
I did not wanted to be polemical, nor I wanted to start a flame.
I should say that I 100% agree with Jan: the purposes of LPCs can be
disattended with this reset problem, and workarounds are not so
encouraging. I'm surprised (and sorry) Philips "spoke so a long time
ago", but since then did not corrected the problem.
Suppgrg --- In lpc900_users@lpc9..., Jan Waclawek <wek@e...> wrote:
> IMHO stating "reset is flawed" and "workarounds are available" is nice,
> but I would also expect upgrades to the chips with corrected known
> problems. I see nothing so far (although the 932 has 2nd edition
already).
> What is the point of having a tiny chip when a bunch of additional
> circuitry around is required?
> WD is no workaround as it takes time while it kicks in and harm can be
> done until then.
> Requiring "proper power supply (shutoff)" is useless as was useless
> claiming "for reset a cap is enough if power rises fast enough" at
older
> '51s. It's good for toys but completely wrong for anything more serious.
>
> This flaw can easily bury this otherwise interesting family.
>
> Personal view, arguable.
>
> Jan Waclawek >
> lpc2100_fan wrote:
> > All in all, having the problem Philips did the right thing,
> > documenting it and providing work around solutions. Seems you
> > expected something else with your subject "So spoke Philips" because
> > Philips spoke so a long time ago.
(You need to be a member of LPC900_users -- send a blank email to LPC900_users-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
I should say that I 100% agree with Jan: the purposes of LPCs can be
disattended with this reset problem, and workarounds are not so
encouraging. I'm surprised (and sorry) Philips "spoke so a long time
ago", but since then did not corrected the problem.
Suppgrg --- In lpc900_users@lpc9..., Jan Waclawek <wek@e...> wrote:
> IMHO stating "reset is flawed" and "workarounds are available" is nice,
> but I would also expect upgrades to the chips with corrected known
> problems. I see nothing so far (although the 932 has 2nd edition
already).
> What is the point of having a tiny chip when a bunch of additional
> circuitry around is required?
> WD is no workaround as it takes time while it kicks in and harm can be
> done until then.
> Requiring "proper power supply (shutoff)" is useless as was useless
> claiming "for reset a cap is enough if power rises fast enough" at
older
> '51s. It's good for toys but completely wrong for anything more serious.
>
> This flaw can easily bury this otherwise interesting family.
>
> Personal view, arguable.
>
> Jan Waclawek >
> lpc2100_fan wrote:
> > All in all, having the problem Philips did the right thing,
> > documenting it and providing work around solutions. Seems you
> > expected something else with your subject "So spoke Philips" because
> > Philips spoke so a long time ago.
(You need to be a member of LPC900_users -- send a blank email to LPC900_users-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: So spoke Philips - tbavp - Sep 27 9:32:00 2005
This problem is not specific to Philips. I'm using a Microchip (not by
choice!) rfPIC12C509 that exhibits this same problem. If you reapply
power to it while Vcc is around 0.2V, it fails to start up properly.
Looking at the Microchip spec sheet reveals the same data as the
LPC9xx's: power on reset value is 0.2V. A Freescale MC9S12 states
power on reset is asserted at 0.97V. I don't think this is anything
really unusual, for Philips or anyone else.
BUT! Am I missing something? How does adding the external reset
controller help? I just looked at 3 different controllers (2 from
Maxim and one from Analog Dev), and all of them only guarantee a valid
reset signal down to 1V Vcc!
So why does adding an external reset generator work better?
What am I missing?
I like this family too (although I wish it had a Vcc range of 2.7 -
5.5 V), and I've designed it into a portable product that really can't
afford any additional current drain, as from an external reset
generator. (No, not even 5-10uA!)
tom
--- In lpc900_users@lpc9..., "AVS Electronics" <suppgrg@a...>
wrote:
> I did not wanted to be polemical, nor I wanted to start a flame.
> I should say that I 100% agree with Jan: the purposes of LPCs can be
> disattended with this reset problem, and workarounds are not so
> encouraging. I'm surprised (and sorry) Philips "spoke so a long time
> ago", but since then did not corrected the problem.
>
> Suppgrg > --- In lpc900_users@lpc9..., Jan Waclawek <wek@e...> wrote:
> > IMHO stating "reset is flawed" and "workarounds are available" is
nice,
> > but I would also expect upgrades to the chips with corrected
known
> > problems. I see nothing so far (although the 932 has 2nd edition
> already).
> > What is the point of having a tiny chip when a bunch of
additional
> > circuitry around is required?
> > WD is no workaround as it takes time while it kicks in and harm
can be
> > done until then.
> > Requiring "proper power supply (shutoff)" is useless as was
useless
> > claiming "for reset a cap is enough if power rises fast enough" at
> older
> > '51s. It's good for toys but completely wrong for anything more
serious.
> >
> > This flaw can easily bury this otherwise interesting family.
> >
> > Personal view, arguable.
> >
> > Jan Waclawek
> >
> >
> >
> > lpc2100_fan wrote:
> > > All in all, having the problem Philips did the right thing,
> > > documenting it and providing work around solutions. Seems you
> > > expected something else with your subject "So spoke Philips"
because
> > > Philips spoke so a long time ago.
(You need to be a member of LPC900_users -- send a blank email to LPC900_users-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
choice!) rfPIC12C509 that exhibits this same problem. If you reapply
power to it while Vcc is around 0.2V, it fails to start up properly.
Looking at the Microchip spec sheet reveals the same data as the
LPC9xx's: power on reset value is 0.2V. A Freescale MC9S12 states
power on reset is asserted at 0.97V. I don't think this is anything
really unusual, for Philips or anyone else.
BUT! Am I missing something? How does adding the external reset
controller help? I just looked at 3 different controllers (2 from
Maxim and one from Analog Dev), and all of them only guarantee a valid
reset signal down to 1V Vcc!
So why does adding an external reset generator work better?
What am I missing?
I like this family too (although I wish it had a Vcc range of 2.7 -
5.5 V), and I've designed it into a portable product that really can't
afford any additional current drain, as from an external reset
generator. (No, not even 5-10uA!)
tom
--- In lpc900_users@lpc9..., "AVS Electronics" <suppgrg@a...>
wrote:
> I did not wanted to be polemical, nor I wanted to start a flame.
> I should say that I 100% agree with Jan: the purposes of LPCs can be
> disattended with this reset problem, and workarounds are not so
> encouraging. I'm surprised (and sorry) Philips "spoke so a long time
> ago", but since then did not corrected the problem.
>
> Suppgrg > --- In lpc900_users@lpc9..., Jan Waclawek <wek@e...> wrote:
> > IMHO stating "reset is flawed" and "workarounds are available" is
nice,
> > but I would also expect upgrades to the chips with corrected
known
> > problems. I see nothing so far (although the 932 has 2nd edition
> already).
> > What is the point of having a tiny chip when a bunch of
additional
> > circuitry around is required?
> > WD is no workaround as it takes time while it kicks in and harm
can be
> > done until then.
> > Requiring "proper power supply (shutoff)" is useless as was
useless
> > claiming "for reset a cap is enough if power rises fast enough" at
> older
> > '51s. It's good for toys but completely wrong for anything more
serious.
> >
> > This flaw can easily bury this otherwise interesting family.
> >
> > Personal view, arguable.
> >
> > Jan Waclawek
> >
> >
> >
> > lpc2100_fan wrote:
> > > All in all, having the problem Philips did the right thing,
> > > documenting it and providing work around solutions. Seems you
> > > expected something else with your subject "So spoke Philips"
because
> > > Philips spoke so a long time ago.
(You need to be a member of LPC900_users -- send a blank email to LPC900_users-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: So spoke Philips - lpc2100_fan - Sep 27 13:18:00 2005
Tom,
here is what you are missing: If you switch off power, the voltage in
your system will go down to a threshold of a diode drop rather
rapidly. So the range 0.7V to 0.5V will be reached fast. Now you need
parasitics to reduce the voltage further. There will always be some
capacitors holding up the voltage with no path to ground except some
pull-downs if they exist. As an example, it might onle take a few
milliseconds to reach 0.7V but it could take minutes to get very close
to 0V. This is why a value like the 1V of the reset circuits is good
but the 0.2V is more of a challenge in some applications where
switching off and on occurs within a very short time.
Bob
--- In lpc900_users@lpc9..., "tbavp" <padoff@a...> wrote:
> This problem is not specific to Philips. I'm using a Microchip (not by
> choice!) rfPIC12C509 that exhibits this same problem. If you reapply
> power to it while Vcc is around 0.2V, it fails to start up properly.
> Looking at the Microchip spec sheet reveals the same data as the
> LPC9xx's: power on reset value is 0.2V. A Freescale MC9S12 states
> power on reset is asserted at 0.97V. I don't think this is anything
> really unusual, for Philips or anyone else.
>
> BUT! Am I missing something? How does adding the external reset
> controller help? I just looked at 3 different controllers (2 from
> Maxim and one from Analog Dev), and all of them only guarantee a valid
> reset signal down to 1V Vcc!
>
> So why does adding an external reset generator work better?
>
> What am I missing?
>
> I like this family too (although I wish it had a Vcc range of 2.7 -
> 5.5 V), and I've designed it into a portable product that really can't
> afford any additional current drain, as from an external reset
> generator. (No, not even 5-10uA!)
>
> tom >
> --- In lpc900_users@lpc9..., "AVS Electronics" <suppgrg@a...>
> wrote:
> > I did not wanted to be polemical, nor I wanted to start a flame.
> > I should say that I 100% agree with Jan: the purposes of LPCs can be
> > disattended with this reset problem, and workarounds are not so
> > encouraging. I'm surprised (and sorry) Philips "spoke so a long time
> > ago", but since then did not corrected the problem.
> >
> > Suppgrg
> >
> >
> > --- In lpc900_users@lpc9..., Jan Waclawek <wek@e...> wrote:
> > > IMHO stating "reset is flawed" and "workarounds are available" is
> nice,
> > > but I would also expect upgrades to the chips with corrected
> known
> > > problems. I see nothing so far (although the 932 has 2nd edition
> > already).
> > > What is the point of having a tiny chip when a bunch of
> additional
> > > circuitry around is required?
> > > WD is no workaround as it takes time while it kicks in and harm
> can be
> > > done until then.
> > > Requiring "proper power supply (shutoff)" is useless as was
> useless
> > > claiming "for reset a cap is enough if power rises fast enough" at
> > older
> > > '51s. It's good for toys but completely wrong for anything more
> serious.
> > >
> > > This flaw can easily bury this otherwise interesting family.
> > >
> > > Personal view, arguable.
> > >
> > > Jan Waclawek
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > lpc2100_fan wrote:
> > > > All in all, having the problem Philips did the right thing,
> > > > documenting it and providing work around solutions. Seems you
> > > > expected something else with your subject "So spoke Philips"
> because
> > > > Philips spoke so a long time ago.
(You need to be a member of LPC900_users -- send a blank email to LPC900_users-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
here is what you are missing: If you switch off power, the voltage in
your system will go down to a threshold of a diode drop rather
rapidly. So the range 0.7V to 0.5V will be reached fast. Now you need
parasitics to reduce the voltage further. There will always be some
capacitors holding up the voltage with no path to ground except some
pull-downs if they exist. As an example, it might onle take a few
milliseconds to reach 0.7V but it could take minutes to get very close
to 0V. This is why a value like the 1V of the reset circuits is good
but the 0.2V is more of a challenge in some applications where
switching off and on occurs within a very short time.
Bob
--- In lpc900_users@lpc9..., "tbavp" <padoff@a...> wrote:
> This problem is not specific to Philips. I'm using a Microchip (not by
> choice!) rfPIC12C509 that exhibits this same problem. If you reapply
> power to it while Vcc is around 0.2V, it fails to start up properly.
> Looking at the Microchip spec sheet reveals the same data as the
> LPC9xx's: power on reset value is 0.2V. A Freescale MC9S12 states
> power on reset is asserted at 0.97V. I don't think this is anything
> really unusual, for Philips or anyone else.
>
> BUT! Am I missing something? How does adding the external reset
> controller help? I just looked at 3 different controllers (2 from
> Maxim and one from Analog Dev), and all of them only guarantee a valid
> reset signal down to 1V Vcc!
>
> So why does adding an external reset generator work better?
>
> What am I missing?
>
> I like this family too (although I wish it had a Vcc range of 2.7 -
> 5.5 V), and I've designed it into a portable product that really can't
> afford any additional current drain, as from an external reset
> generator. (No, not even 5-10uA!)
>
> tom >
> --- In lpc900_users@lpc9..., "AVS Electronics" <suppgrg@a...>
> wrote:
> > I did not wanted to be polemical, nor I wanted to start a flame.
> > I should say that I 100% agree with Jan: the purposes of LPCs can be
> > disattended with this reset problem, and workarounds are not so
> > encouraging. I'm surprised (and sorry) Philips "spoke so a long time
> > ago", but since then did not corrected the problem.
> >
> > Suppgrg
> >
> >
> > --- In lpc900_users@lpc9..., Jan Waclawek <wek@e...> wrote:
> > > IMHO stating "reset is flawed" and "workarounds are available" is
> nice,
> > > but I would also expect upgrades to the chips with corrected
> known
> > > problems. I see nothing so far (although the 932 has 2nd edition
> > already).
> > > What is the point of having a tiny chip when a bunch of
> additional
> > > circuitry around is required?
> > > WD is no workaround as it takes time while it kicks in and harm
> can be
> > > done until then.
> > > Requiring "proper power supply (shutoff)" is useless as was
> useless
> > > claiming "for reset a cap is enough if power rises fast enough" at
> > older
> > > '51s. It's good for toys but completely wrong for anything more
> serious.
> > >
> > > This flaw can easily bury this otherwise interesting family.
> > >
> > > Personal view, arguable.
> > >
> > > Jan Waclawek
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > lpc2100_fan wrote:
> > > > All in all, having the problem Philips did the right thing,
> > > > documenting it and providing work around solutions. Seems you
> > > > expected something else with your subject "So spoke Philips"
> because
> > > > Philips spoke so a long time ago.
(You need to be a member of LPC900_users -- send a blank email to LPC900_users-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )