MSP-FET430UIF, IAR Kickstart: "Failed to initialize device"

Marius.Hancu@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mar 13, 3:47 pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In my case (about 2 years ago) I used an XP machine. Got the errors
>>every time, when trying to program several MSP430F1232. None of them
>>could be programmed until I loaded the (older) Kickstart version from
>>the CD that came with the USB programmer from TI.
> 
> 
> Well, to open some of the environments (.eww) we had required the new
> IAR 3.42 Kickstart. The old one (3.21) which came with  the MSP-
> FET430UIF, couldn't do that.
> 
> So, we installed 3.42.
> 
> However, with the 3.42 version, we had the "Failed to load debugee"
> errors described in the above, i.e. couldn't really debug.
> 
> Then we decided to go back to the old drivers, by uninstalling 3.42
> and trying to install 3.21, however the old IAR (3.21) hanged when
> trying to initialize devices.
> 
> We would be curious to know what is experience of others re going back
> to old drivers or IAR versions from the new ones?
> 
> With the MSP-FET430UIFs  we have (2004, but recently bought), we
> really couldn't do that, backtracking wasn't an option. Not too good,
> in our view.
> 

I also "hand-wiped" the directory and deleted it after un-install. Then 
I made a new directory to install the old version. That did the trick.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

On Mar 14, 11:46 am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net>
wrote:

> > However, with the 3.42 version, we had the "Failed to load debugee"
> > errors described in the above, i.e. couldn't really debug.

Fixed after sending all our FETs (both USB and LPT) to TI support for
re-programming. Some of them were recently bought, but manufactured in
2004.

Windows 2000 is still a problem, we can only work with them under XP.

Marius Hancu

Marius.Hancu@gmail.com schrieb:
> On Mar 14, 11:46 am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net>
> wrote:
> 
>>> However, with the 3.42 version, we had the "Failed to load debugee"
>>> errors described in the above, i.e. couldn't really debug.
> 
> Fixed after sending all our FETs (both USB and LPT) to TI support for

LPT? How do they program a 'HC244?

> re-programming. Some of them were recently bought, but manufactured in
> 2004.


cheers
Gunther

In article <1173753841.281838.84100@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, 
Marius.Hancu@gmail.com writes
>> We have two MSP430 development setups using:
>>
>> - the IAR Kickstart 3.42 for TI MSP430
>> - the USB Debugging Interface MSP-FET430UIF
>> - the target: MSP430F1612
>>
>> One of them works fine, we're able to compile and debug.
>>
>> One the other, we can compile but we can't debug/execute. We're getting
>> these messages:
>>
>> Failed to initialize device
>> Failed to load debugee
>
>Is IAR KickStart sensitive to the Windows version? The one setup which
>works is on Windows XP, the one which doesn't is Windows 2000.
>
>Marius Hancu

I have an idea the USB support in Win2K in general  was not exactly 
stable.
-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <T5EJh.4724$JZ3.444@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, Joerg 
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> writes
>Hello Mats,
>
>By the way I find it is great that an engineer from a manufacturer 
>participates in a newsgroup like this. Way to go!

Far more do than you realise.  There are AFAIK people from most of the 
major semis and tools companies on here.   Most use non-company email 
addresses for all the usual reasons..

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <T5EJh.4724$JZ3.444@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, Joerg 
> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> writes
>> Hello Mats,
>>
>> By the way I find it is great that an engineer from a manufacturer 
>> participates in a newsgroup like this. Way to go!
> 
> Far more do than you realise.  There are AFAIK people from most of the 
> major semis and tools companies on here.   Most use non-company email 
> addresses for all the usual reasons..
> 

I greatly prefer it when they identify themselves properly, at least 
when writing about their company's products.  Anything else is downright 
deceitful.  I have no time or respect for someone who tells you how 
wonderful a product is without letting you know that they are involved 
in its sale or manufacture.  By all means add a "this is my personal 
opinion..." disclaimer and use a fake email address - that's fair 
enough.  And there is no need to state your company for every post - it 
is only necessary for posts relevant to your company's products 
(although for some people, *all* their posts discuss their products 
regardless of the topic...).

That said, I agree that having company presence in relevant newsgroups, 
mailing lists, and web forums is a good thing, for both the company and 
their customers.

mvh.,

David

In article <4607c1f3$0$31515$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown 
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes
>Chris Hills wrote:
>> In article <T5EJh.4724$JZ3.444@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, Joerg 
>><notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> writes
>>> Hello Mats,
>>>
>>> By the way I find it is great that an engineer from a manufacturer 
>>>participates in a newsgroup like this. Way to go!
>>  Far more do than you realise.  There are AFAIK people from most of 
>>the  major semis and tools companies on here.   Most use non-company 
>>email  addresses for all the usual reasons..
>>
>
>I greatly prefer it when they identify themselves properly, at least 
>when writing about their company's products.

Since many are on here as a personal thing they can not do that. They 
are not representing their company.

> Anything else is downright deceitful.  I have no time or respect for 
>someone who tells you how wonderful a product is without letting you 
>know that they are involved in its sale or manufacture.

I don't think any do. None that I have seen anyway. Most just give the 
odd nudge to tech support questions. The only people I have seen 
blatantly pushing a product and work for that company  have used a 
company email address.

> By all means add a "this is my personal opinion..." disclaimer and use 
>a fake email address - that's fair enough.

I think that that is taken as read. Besides some are hiding their 
opinions from the company they work for as much as hiding the company 
they work for.  :-)

FYI I work for my self.

> And there is no need to state your company for every post -

I use a real company email address.

> it is only necessary for posts relevant to your company's products 
>(although for some people, *all* their posts discuss their products 
>regardless of the topic...).

However those that do tend to be obvious about it.

>That said, I agree that having company presence in relevant newsgroups, 
>mailing lists, and web forums is a good thing, for both the company and 
>their customers.

I think so. The companies get grass roots feed back which helps their 
tech support.  IT may also alert them to problems faster than other 
forms of feedback

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

David Brown wrote:
> Chris Hills wrote:
>> Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> writes
>>>
>>> By the way I find it is great that an engineer from a manufacturer
>>> participates in a newsgroup like this. Way to go!
>>
>> Far more do than you realise.  There are AFAIK people from most of
>> the major semis and tools companies on here.   Most use non-company
>> email addresses for all the usual reasons..
> 
> I greatly prefer it when they identify themselves properly, at least
> when writing about their company's products.  Anything else is
> downright deceitful.  I have no time or respect for someone who
> tells you how wonderful a product is without letting you know that
> they are involved in its sale or manufacture.  By all means add a
> "this is my personal opinion..." disclaimer and use a fake email
> address - that's fair enough.  And there is no need to state your
> company for every post - it is only necessary for posts relevant to
> your company's products (although for some people, *all* their posts
> discuss their products regardless of the topic...).
> 
> That said, I agree that having company presence in relevant
> newsgroups, mailing lists, and web forums is a good thing, for both
> the company and their customers.

Actually, in Usenet, there is no real need to hide from spammers,
since the reply-to field is not normally easily accessible to them
without the complete article, yet it makes email replies trivial.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <4607c1f3$0$31515$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown 
> <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes
>> Chris Hills wrote:
>>> In article <T5EJh.4724$JZ3.444@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, Joerg 
>>> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> writes
>>>> Hello Mats,
>>>>
>>>> By the way I find it is great that an engineer from a manufacturer 
>>>> participates in a newsgroup like this. Way to go!
>>>  Far more do than you realise.  There are AFAIK people from most of 
>>> the  major semis and tools companies on here.   Most use non-company 
>>> email  addresses for all the usual reasons..
>>>
>>
>> I greatly prefer it when they identify themselves properly, at least 
>> when writing about their company's products.
> 
> Since many are on here as a personal thing they can not do that. They 
> are not representing their company.
> 
>> Anything else is downright deceitful.  I have no time or respect for 
>> someone who tells you how wonderful a product is without letting you 
>> know that they are involved in its sale or manufacture.
> 
> I don't think any do. None that I have seen anyway. Most just give the 
> odd nudge to tech support questions. The only people I have seen 
> blatantly pushing a product and work for that company  have used a 
> company email address.
> 

That's fair enough - if you are not pushing their company's agenda, then 
there is no need to say what company you are working for.  And it is 
also absolutely fine to give a brief hint towards technical support or 
the like.  What I want to make sure we avoid, is salesmen claiming to be 
"just a satisfied customer".

I don't think there have been many cases of "moles" pushing their 
company's products without revealing their connection (other than the 
occasional "I've just found this great website" spam).  But it has 
happened once or twice (there were some large threads a number of years 
ago after such as mole was "outed".  I can't remember the company).  I'd 
just like anyone in this group whose products or services are of 
interest to others here to realise that honest technical contributions 
are much appreciated, while dishonest marketing is not.

>> By all means add a "this is my personal opinion..." disclaimer and use 
>> a fake email address - that's fair enough.
> 
> I think that that is taken as read. Besides some are hiding their 
> opinions from the company they work for as much as hiding the company 
> they work for.  :-)
> 
> FYI I work for my self.
> 

I know that - I've been abbreviating and referring to "companies" and 
"employers" for convenience.

>> And there is no need to state your company for every post -
> 
> I use a real company email address.
> 

You are an example of someone who often gives good technical 
information, and makes it clear where you are coming from.  This is good 
advertising for you, but also makes it clear that when discussing some 
issues, you are going to have a specific bias.  That's fine, it's honest 
and open - no one would expect you to extol the virtues of products that 
compete directly with the ones you sell.  People like you, or Ulf from 
Atmel, are good to have around.

>> it is only necessary for posts relevant to your company's products 
>> (although for some people, *all* their posts discuss their products 
>> regardless of the topic...).
> 
> However those that do tend to be obvious about it.
> 

Obvious is good (programmers should understand that!).

>> That said, I agree that having company presence in relevant 
>> newsgroups, mailing lists, and web forums is a good thing, for both 
>> the company and their customers.
> 
> I think so. The companies get grass roots feed back which helps their 
> tech support.  IT may also alert them to problems faster than other 
> forms of feedback
> 

I guess what I'm saying is that honest technical company presence is 
good, but astroturfing is bad.  It has not been a problem here, and I 
hope it stays that way.

mvh.,

David

CBFalconer wrote:
> Actually, in Usenet, there is no real need to hide from spammers,
> since the reply-to field is not normally easily accessible to them
> without the complete article, yet it makes email replies trivial.

That would be true, if spammers didn't talk NNTP as well as us.