Thanks, Peter.
I just realized i didn't know what I was doing. Now I know what I am
doing. All I have to do is read the 2102 from a windows application.
The CP2102 chip already is recieving data through the UART on the
Phytec Board.
So simple, but so brilliant.
I have no experience in USB. I don't even know how it functions and
what are its simplest concepts. All I know is what every one knows.
Take the plug thingie and put it in the rectangular slot behind the
PC, and device works.
I would have been slightly offended of your seemingly condescending
tone, but I am so ecstatic that I will just consider it as a reprimand
of my ignorance.
Thanks again,
Karim.
--- In l..., Peter Jakacki wrote:
>
> wickedmonster2002 wrote:
> > I am trying to get this chip to work on my Phytec board with lpc2220
> > on it.
> >
> > So far, I have found code samples online that are compatible with the
> > 8051 system. Has anyone used this chip on the LPC or ARM environment
> > who can provide me sample code to make my life easy?
> >
> > Tips, comments, curses welcome.
>
> What exactly are you having a problem with? The CP2102 (I assume you
> mean 2102 and not 2012) works perfectly and does not require any
"code".
> It looks just like a serial port to the target micro.
Just connect as
> normal and load the windows driver. Make sure you close the port or the
> terminal before you connect the usb as windows will have to enumerate
> and assign a coms port. This is the thing that really annoys me because
> you just don't know what port it's going to pick sometimes. Run
> devmgmt.msc and look under ports to see your CP2102 and port. You can
> change the port from there if you want.
>
> There is a lesser known silabs utility CP210xSetIDs.exe that you can
use
> to program each CP2102 USB id registers. By assigning
different serial
> numbers you can run a bunch of these ports without windows getting
confused.
>
> Since I was confused by your request for sample code (do you know what
> you are doing???) and the CP2012 typo I did a quick google and was
> assured that it was a typo on your part.
>
> *Peter*
>