Is it normal for the Philips Flash Utility (2.2.3) to ID a LPC2148 as
a LPC2138?
I'm using a Olimex LPC-P2148 with a clearly marked and correcly
identifyed LPC-2148 part (ID 196389).
I know that they have equal amount of ROM & RAM, but since the LPC2148
*do exist* in the dropdown box *i assumed* it would be selected.
One other thing.
Why have a dropdown box if the only thing the user can do is to
autodetect the part and watch the dropdownbox get 'locked' with
whatever the program feels i correct?
Back to the drawingboard guys! ;-)
What else can i expect to be wierd in this utility?
Is there anything i should know of that can
render my part useless?
LPC2148 identifyed as a LPC2138?
Started by ●January 7, 2006
Reply by ●January 7, 20062006-01-07
On LPCs the part ID is stored as a parameter in the boot sector. It
is quite possible the boot sector was loaded or updated incorrectly.
--- In lpc2000@lpc2..., "tiltedkeyboard" <tiltedkeyboard@y...>
wrote:
>
> Is it normal for the Philips Flash Utility (2.2.3) to ID a LPC2148 as
> a LPC2138?
>
> I'm using a Olimex LPC-P2148 with a clearly marked and correcly
> identifyed LPC-2148 part (ID 196389).
> I know that they have equal amount of ROM & RAM, but since the LPC2148
> *do exist* in the dropdown box *i assumed* it would be selected.
>
> One other thing.
> Why have a dropdown box if the only thing the user can do is to
> autodetect the part and watch the dropdownbox get 'locked' with
> whatever the program feels i correct?
> Back to the drawingboard guys! ;-)
>
> What else can i expect to be wierd in this utility?
> Is there anything i should know of that can
> render my part useless?
>
is quite possible the boot sector was loaded or updated incorrectly.
--- In lpc2000@lpc2..., "tiltedkeyboard" <tiltedkeyboard@y...>
wrote:
>
> Is it normal for the Philips Flash Utility (2.2.3) to ID a LPC2148 as
> a LPC2138?
>
> I'm using a Olimex LPC-P2148 with a clearly marked and correcly
> identifyed LPC-2148 part (ID 196389).
> I know that they have equal amount of ROM & RAM, but since the LPC2148
> *do exist* in the dropdown box *i assumed* it would be selected.
>
> One other thing.
> Why have a dropdown box if the only thing the user can do is to
> autodetect the part and watch the dropdownbox get 'locked' with
> whatever the program feels i correct?
> Back to the drawingboard guys! ;-)
>
> What else can i expect to be wierd in this utility?
> Is there anything i should know of that can
> render my part useless?
>
Reply by ●January 7, 20062006-01-07
--- In lpc2000@lpc2..., "jayasooriah" <jayasooriah@y...>
wrote:
>
> On LPCs the part ID is stored as a parameter in the boot sector. It
> is quite possible the boot sector was loaded or updated incorrectly.
>
No, the part is correctly identifyed as a "196389".
According to the User Guide that is a LPC-2148.
It seems that it is the Philips Flash Util that don't *select* the
right part (probably due to a bug) after having read a correct ID.
>
> On LPCs the part ID is stored as a parameter in the boot sector. It
> is quite possible the boot sector was loaded or updated incorrectly.
>
No, the part is correctly identifyed as a "196389".
According to the User Guide that is a LPC-2148.
It seems that it is the Philips Flash Util that don't *select* the
right part (probably due to a bug) after having read a correct ID.
Reply by ●January 7, 20062006-01-07
You will find that the 2148 manual is incorrect and has not been updated
in this respect. Read the 2138 manual and you will find that the part id
for the 2138 is 196389 which is what you are reading and so the utility
is correct. My 2148s read 67305253 (0x0402FF25) which is the correct
part id for 2148s.
Here is my cpu id table I use to identify devices.
CPUID:
dc32 2104d,0xFFF0FF12
dc32 2105d,0xFFF0FF22
dc32 2106d,0xFFF0FF32
dc32 2114d,0x0101FF12
dc32 2119d,0x0201FF12
dc32 2124d,0x0101FF13
dc32 2129d,0x0201FF13
dc32 2131d,0x0002FF01
dc32 2132d,0x0002FF11
dc32 2134d,0x0002FF12
dc32 2136d,0x0002FF23
dc32 2138d,0x0002FF25
dc32 2141d,0x0402FF01
dc32 2142d,0x0402FF11
dc32 2144d,0x0402FF12
dc32 2146d,0x0402FF23
dc32 2148d,0x0402FF25
dc32 2194d,0x0301FF13
dc32 2210d,0x0301FF12
dc32 2290d,0x0301FF12
dc32 2212d,0x0401FF12
dc32 2214d,0x0601FF13
dc32 2292d,0x0401FF13
dc32 2294d,0x0501FF13
dc32 0 *Peter*
tiltedkeyboard wrote:
> No, the part is correctly identifyed as a "196389".
> According to the User Guide that is a LPC-2148.
>
> It seems that it is the Philips Flash Util that don't *select* the
> right part (probably due to a bug) after having read a correct ID.
in this respect. Read the 2138 manual and you will find that the part id
for the 2138 is 196389 which is what you are reading and so the utility
is correct. My 2148s read 67305253 (0x0402FF25) which is the correct
part id for 2148s.
Here is my cpu id table I use to identify devices.
CPUID:
dc32 2104d,0xFFF0FF12
dc32 2105d,0xFFF0FF22
dc32 2106d,0xFFF0FF32
dc32 2114d,0x0101FF12
dc32 2119d,0x0201FF12
dc32 2124d,0x0101FF13
dc32 2129d,0x0201FF13
dc32 2131d,0x0002FF01
dc32 2132d,0x0002FF11
dc32 2134d,0x0002FF12
dc32 2136d,0x0002FF23
dc32 2138d,0x0002FF25
dc32 2141d,0x0402FF01
dc32 2142d,0x0402FF11
dc32 2144d,0x0402FF12
dc32 2146d,0x0402FF23
dc32 2148d,0x0402FF25
dc32 2194d,0x0301FF13
dc32 2210d,0x0301FF12
dc32 2290d,0x0301FF12
dc32 2212d,0x0401FF12
dc32 2214d,0x0601FF13
dc32 2292d,0x0401FF13
dc32 2294d,0x0501FF13
dc32 0 *Peter*
tiltedkeyboard wrote:
> No, the part is correctly identifyed as a "196389".
> According to the User Guide that is a LPC-2148.
>
> It seems that it is the Philips Flash Util that don't *select* the
> right part (probably due to a bug) after having read a correct ID.
Reply by ●January 7, 20062006-01-07
--- In lpc2000@lpc2..., Peter Jakacki <peterjak@t...> wrote:
>
> You will find that the 2148 manual is incorrect and has not been
updated
> in this respect. Read the 2138 manual and you will find that the
part id
> for the 2138 is 196389 which is what you are reading and so the utility
> is correct. My 2148s read 67305253 (0x0402FF25) which is the correct
> part id for 2148s.
Hmm...Okay.
Thank you for that input. Seems like one can't trust the manual
- Great! ;-)
Is there any possibility to fix the ID on my 2148 chip? It's located
in ROM i guess?
I don't really see why a 2148 part ever need to identify itself as a
2138, even thou they are almost identical apart from the USB device port.
>
> You will find that the 2148 manual is incorrect and has not been
updated
> in this respect. Read the 2138 manual and you will find that the
part id
> for the 2138 is 196389 which is what you are reading and so the utility
> is correct. My 2148s read 67305253 (0x0402FF25) which is the correct
> part id for 2148s.
Hmm...Okay.
Thank you for that input. Seems like one can't trust the manual
- Great! ;-)
Is there any possibility to fix the ID on my 2148 chip? It's located
in ROM i guess?
I don't really see why a 2148 part ever need to identify itself as a
2138, even thou they are almost identical apart from the USB device port.
Reply by ●January 7, 20062006-01-07
That's what I was wondering, is it really a 2148? How is it marked?
If you wanted to force the 2148 bootloader in then I guess you could try
updating the bootloader at your own risk. There is an appnote at;
http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/files/products/standard/microcontrollers/utilities/lpc2000_bl_update.zip
I can send you a copy of the 2148 hex file if you need this.
What I'm worried about is if your chip is really a 2148 then why does it
have the 2138 bootloader. If you conclusively confirm it is a 2148
(markings, fast I/O, USB, etc) then I would find out from Philips what
is going on first.
*Peter* tiltedkeyboard wrote:
> Hmm...Okay.
>
> Thank you for that input. Seems like one can't trust the manual
> - Great! ;-)
>
> Is there any possibility to fix the ID on my 2148 chip? It's located
> in ROM i guess?
>
> I don't really see why a 2148 part ever need to identify itself as a
> 2138, even thou they are almost identical apart from the USB device port.
>
If you wanted to force the 2148 bootloader in then I guess you could try
updating the bootloader at your own risk. There is an appnote at;
http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/files/products/standard/microcontrollers/utilities/lpc2000_bl_update.zip
I can send you a copy of the 2148 hex file if you need this.
What I'm worried about is if your chip is really a 2148 then why does it
have the 2138 bootloader. If you conclusively confirm it is a 2148
(markings, fast I/O, USB, etc) then I would find out from Philips what
is going on first.
*Peter* tiltedkeyboard wrote:
> Hmm...Okay.
>
> Thank you for that input. Seems like one can't trust the manual
> - Great! ;-)
>
> Is there any possibility to fix the ID on my 2148 chip? It's located
> in ROM i guess?
>
> I don't really see why a 2148 part ever need to identify itself as a
> 2138, even thou they are almost identical apart from the USB device port.
>
Reply by ●January 8, 20062006-01-08
Well,
I took the Keil (eight LED) blinkyIRQ (my first ever ARM project) and
modified the LED output a little for my (two LED) Olimex board.
Worked the first time.
Encouraged, i moved on to the USB Memeory example project...
...which didn't work (did anyone get suprised? :P).
Probably due to the hardware looking a bit different around the
connect pin....
Then i found the IAR HID Mouse example (Olimex = IAR starterkit, i
think) as a HEX and uploaded it to the flash.
Worked like a charm.
So this one is a LPC214x for sure. :)
Chip top marking:
LPC2148FBD64
S60652.1
ZPG0521-Y
LPC2000 flash utility 223 says:
Part ID: 196389
Boot loader ID: 2.1
Go figure..
--- In lpc2000@lpc2..., Peter Jakacki <peterjak@t...> wrote:
>
> That's what I was wondering, is it really a 2148? How is it marked?
>
> If you wanted to force the 2148 bootloader in then I guess you could
try
> updating the bootloader at your own risk. There is an appnote at; http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/files/products/standard/microcontrollers/utilities/lpc2000_bl_update.zip
>
> I can send you a copy of the 2148 hex file if you need this.
>
> What I'm worried about is if your chip is really a 2148 then why
does it
> have the 2138 bootloader. If you conclusively confirm it is a 2148
> (markings, fast I/O, USB, etc) then I would find out from Philips what
> is going on first.
>
> *Peter*
I took the Keil (eight LED) blinkyIRQ (my first ever ARM project) and
modified the LED output a little for my (two LED) Olimex board.
Worked the first time.
Encouraged, i moved on to the USB Memeory example project...
...which didn't work (did anyone get suprised? :P).
Probably due to the hardware looking a bit different around the
connect pin....
Then i found the IAR HID Mouse example (Olimex = IAR starterkit, i
think) as a HEX and uploaded it to the flash.
Worked like a charm.
So this one is a LPC214x for sure. :)
Chip top marking:
LPC2148FBD64
S60652.1
ZPG0521-Y
LPC2000 flash utility 223 says:
Part ID: 196389
Boot loader ID: 2.1
Go figure..
--- In lpc2000@lpc2..., Peter Jakacki <peterjak@t...> wrote:
>
> That's what I was wondering, is it really a 2148? How is it marked?
>
> If you wanted to force the 2148 bootloader in then I guess you could
try
> updating the bootloader at your own risk. There is an appnote at; http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/files/products/standard/microcontrollers/utilities/lpc2000_bl_update.zip
>
> I can send you a copy of the 2148 hex file if you need this.
>
> What I'm worried about is if your chip is really a 2148 then why
does it
> have the 2138 bootloader. If you conclusively confirm it is a 2148
> (markings, fast I/O, USB, etc) then I would find out from Philips what
> is going on first.
>
> *Peter*
Reply by ●January 8, 20062006-01-08
Ok, looks like this may have been an earlier sample as I have bootloader
2.11 and it ids as a 2148 fine.
FYI, my chip markings are:
LPC2148FBD64
S60652.20
ZPG0528-Y Maybe you can take a stab at updating the bootloader, I'll email you the
hex file.
*Peter*
tiltedkeyboard wrote:
> Well,
>
> I took the Keil (eight LED) blinkyIRQ (my first ever ARM project) and
> modified the LED output a little for my (two LED) Olimex board.
> Worked the first time.
>
> Encouraged, i moved on to the USB Memeory example project...
> ...which didn't work (did anyone get suprised? :P).
> Probably due to the hardware looking a bit different around the
> connect pin....
>
> Then i found the IAR HID Mouse example (Olimex = IAR starterkit, i
> think) as a HEX and uploaded it to the flash.
> Worked like a charm.
>
> So this one is a LPC214x for sure. :)
>
> Chip top marking:
> LPC2148FBD64
> S60652.1
> ZPG0521-Y
>
> LPC2000 flash utility 223 says:
>
> Part ID: 196389
> Boot loader ID: 2.1
>
> Go figure..
2.11 and it ids as a 2148 fine.
FYI, my chip markings are:
LPC2148FBD64
S60652.20
ZPG0528-Y Maybe you can take a stab at updating the bootloader, I'll email you the
hex file.
*Peter*
tiltedkeyboard wrote:
> Well,
>
> I took the Keil (eight LED) blinkyIRQ (my first ever ARM project) and
> modified the LED output a little for my (two LED) Olimex board.
> Worked the first time.
>
> Encouraged, i moved on to the USB Memeory example project...
> ...which didn't work (did anyone get suprised? :P).
> Probably due to the hardware looking a bit different around the
> connect pin....
>
> Then i found the IAR HID Mouse example (Olimex = IAR starterkit, i
> think) as a HEX and uploaded it to the flash.
> Worked like a charm.
>
> So this one is a LPC214x for sure. :)
>
> Chip top marking:
> LPC2148FBD64
> S60652.1
> ZPG0521-Y
>
> LPC2000 flash utility 223 says:
>
> Part ID: 196389
> Boot loader ID: 2.1
>
> Go figure..
Reply by ●January 8, 20062006-01-08
I find it strange that users have to struggle part ID which this is
the very first parameter in the boot block.
Has Philips said anythig about this anywhere?
--- In lpc2000@lpc2..., Peter Jakacki <peterjak@t...> wrote:
>
> Ok, looks like this may have been an earlier sample as I have
bootloader
> 2.11 and it ids as a 2148 fine.
>
> FYI, my chip markings are:
>
> LPC2148FBD64
> S60652.20
> ZPG0528-Y > Maybe you can take a stab at updating the bootloader, I'll email you
the
> hex file.
>
> *Peter*
the very first parameter in the boot block.
Has Philips said anythig about this anywhere?
--- In lpc2000@lpc2..., Peter Jakacki <peterjak@t...> wrote:
>
> Ok, looks like this may have been an earlier sample as I have
bootloader
> 2.11 and it ids as a 2148 fine.
>
> FYI, my chip markings are:
>
> LPC2148FBD64
> S60652.20
> ZPG0528-Y > Maybe you can take a stab at updating the bootloader, I'll email you
the
> hex file.
>
> *Peter*
Reply by ●January 9, 20062006-01-09
Since these parts are officially still sampling then the earlier parts
would logically have the 2138 bootloader as the Philips engineers would
know this would work, the 2148 being the same as the 2138 but with some
enhancements. The part ID is a very minor thing in what are essentially
prototypes so I guess they may have overlooked it or there may have been
lack of communication between the engineers, production, and sales
(yeah, it works).
The fact that my chips which were supplied quite some time ago have the
proper bootloader indicates that Philips has attended to this minor
hiccup (this one at least).
I would be interested to hear more about bootloader corruption as I have
not experienced this myself. Unlike you, I am "unfortunate" not to have
a bunch of students invoking the uninvocable :) :)
*Peter*
jayasooriah wrote:
> I find it strange that users have to struggle part ID which this is
> the very first parameter in the boot block.
>
> Has Philips said anythig about this anywhere?
would logically have the 2138 bootloader as the Philips engineers would
know this would work, the 2148 being the same as the 2138 but with some
enhancements. The part ID is a very minor thing in what are essentially
prototypes so I guess they may have overlooked it or there may have been
lack of communication between the engineers, production, and sales
(yeah, it works).
The fact that my chips which were supplied quite some time ago have the
proper bootloader indicates that Philips has attended to this minor
hiccup (this one at least).
I would be interested to hear more about bootloader corruption as I have
not experienced this myself. Unlike you, I am "unfortunate" not to have
a bunch of students invoking the uninvocable :) :)
*Peter*
jayasooriah wrote:
> I find it strange that users have to struggle part ID which this is
> the very first parameter in the boot block.
>
> Has Philips said anythig about this anywhere?
