> Not being familar with that hardware I see three possible mistakes.
>
> I hope the new day has brought you success.

Ah, it did, thanks. There had been more to it than just the baud rate,
I rewrote the UART initialization code in a less ambitious manner
(thus more
reasonable for a first-time out of reset CPU type here) and it worked.

Dimiter

On Mar 25, 12:14 pm, jasen <j...@free.net.nz> wrote:
> On 2007-03-21, Didi <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >  But the baud rate is totally off the mark.
>
> >  I made the other system say the same through its UART
> > and, measuring the length (43 characters, enough to get an idea
> > if speeds match) I see the new system is apr. 2.7 times slower
> > than it should be.
>
> >  Great, I though I'd just write a 2.7 times lower value in the counter
> > timer and see what happens. Well, the thing is, nothing happened.
> > Same time (2.7 times what it should be) again. I just love that kind
> > of thing when you make dramatic changes only to achieve no change.
> >  I am writing to the so called Counter Timer Upper and then Lower
> > registers, treat them as 8 bit wide (i.e. I write using a .b access,
> > stb) and I write the value of 215, which should yield a 19200 baud
> > given the 132 MHz IPB clock. I already described the effect of
> > changing the 215 to 79 (or sort of, I lost the precise number, it was
> > not exactly 2.7, so it may have been 78 or 80, not that it matters).
>
> > I am tired now and will reluctantly go to sleep (I hate doing that
> > with unsolved basic issues like that).
>
> Not being familar with that hardware I see three possible mistakes.
>
> I hope the new day has brought you success.
>
>  1> you were writing the correct value but later overwriting it
>  2> you were writing the correct value but to the wrong location
>  3> you were writing the correct value but with an incorrect setup
>
> It may be worth checking the errata in the hardware documentation.
>
> Bye.
>    Jasen

On 2007-03-21, Didi <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
>
>  But the baud rate is totally off the mark.
>
>  I made the other system say the same through its UART
> and, measuring the length (43 characters, enough to get an idea
> if speeds match) I see the new system is apr. 2.7 times slower
> than it should be.
>
>  Great, I though I'd just write a 2.7 times lower value in the counter
> timer and see what happens. Well, the thing is, nothing happened.
> Same time (2.7 times what it should be) again. I just love that kind
> of thing when you make dramatic changes only to achieve no change.
>  I am writing to the so called Counter Timer Upper and then Lower
> registers, treat them as 8 bit wide (i.e. I write using a .b access,
> stb) and I write the value of 215, which should yield a 19200 baud
> given the 132 MHz IPB clock. I already described the effect of
> changing the 215 to 79 (or sort of, I lost the precise number, it was
> not exactly 2.7, so it may have been 78 or 80, not that it matters).
>
> I am tired now and will reluctantly go to sleep (I hate doing that
> with unsolved basic issues like that).

Not being familar with that hardware I see three possible mistakes.

I hope the new day has brought you success.

 1> you were writing the correct value but later overwriting it
 2> you were writing the correct value but to the wrong location
 3> you were writing the correct value but with an incorrect setup

It may be worth checking the errata in the hardware documentation.
 
Bye.
   Jasen

I have a Freescale MPC5200 board I designed a while ago which
comes out of reset (I am writing the flash with a debug monitor
which has served me over the years - I wrote it first for the 68020,
then
I made a CPU32 version, then an MPC8240 version etc...), and the
monitor says something through the UART (I use PSC_6).

 But the baud rate is totally off the mark.

 I made the other system say the same through its UART
and, measuring the length (43 characters, enough to get an idea
if speeds match) I see the new system is apr. 2.7 times slower
than it should be.

 Great, I though I'd just write a 2.7 times lower value in the counter
timer and see what happens. Well, the thing is, nothing happened.
Same time (2.7 times what it should be) again. I just love that kind
of thing when you make dramatic changes only to achieve no change.
 I am writing to the so called Counter Timer Upper and then Lower
registers, treat them as 8 bit wide (i.e. I write using a .b access,
stb) and I write the value of 215, which should yield a 19200 baud
given the 132 MHz IPB clock. I already described the effect of
changing the 215 to 79 (or sort of, I lost the precise number, it was
not exactly 2.7, so it may have been 78 or 80, not that it matters).

I am tired now and will reluctantly go to sleep (I hate doing that
with
unsolved basic issues like that).
 Hopefully someone will have an idea what am I doing wrong which
will help me tomorrow...

Thanks,

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------