89CV51RC2 not programmable in ISP!

[Tiziano]

Hello,
I'm a longtime FlashMagic user and now I have no answers about a trouble that happens!
The problem is in P89CV51RC2 parts because are not programmable in ISP mode and does not respond even to blank check. 
The wiring is OK (I'm using a burn-in socket to easy changing of different microprocessors) and I have no problem with other parts (i.e. P89CV51RD2).
With the signal analyzer I can see the "U" sent by PC but there are no answer from the part.  I tried to program more parts of same stock but none is programmable.
I don't know if the part is switching or not in ISP or if the problem is elsewhere.    Could be maybe a problem on bootloader?
Any ideas?  May you suggest an action?
Thank you

[Jan Waclawek]

Is this a new lot? What is the time stamp? Couldn't it be related to http://forum.flashmagictool.com/index.php?topic=4085.0;topicseen ?

JW

[Tiziano]

Thank you Jan.
I probably have the same problem of ALE_FM, as you say!
I start to send the photo of the component, please let me know what you think about.
Thank you
Have a nice day

[Jan Waclawek]

They look reasonable at least at the first sight. However, "ES" indicates "Engineering Samples" (i.e. pre-production batch) and the timestamp appears to place them to 2007.

That in itself does not mean anything, but I'd be not surprised if these were "pulls" or unpopulated but already programmed parts from a discontinued production, with the bootloader blocked or removed altogether.

As these parts are sadly discontinued for quite some time, I would be not surprised to this become more and more common, see for example also http://www.8052.com/forum

Now the only thing I could recommend to you is to get a parallel programmer and an adapter and try to parallel reprogram the devices. I know the TQFP ZIF has a killer price, but maybe you could borrow it or get somebody to program it for you. It might be tricky to find the original bootloader, though; you might need one of the older chips to read it out.

JW

[Tiziano]

...I hope that parallel programming will solve the problem.

I have a Needham EMP10 programmer and 2 good questions about:
1) Is it possible to program an 89CV51RC with EMP10 parallel programmer that not supports 89CV51RC but 87C51RC microcontrollers?   On the 89CV51 datasheet is written "the flash may be programmed or erased using the parallel method by using a commercially available EPROM programmer which supports this device"
2) If the answer is YES then ...I have the programmer but not the TQFP44 adapter! Needham is passed away and I never found informations to wiring an adapter from TQFP44 to DIP40!

Thanx

[Jan Waclawek]

...I hope that parallel programming will solve the problem.

I have a Needham EMP10 programmer and 2 good questions about:
1) Is it possible to program an 89CV51RC with EMP10 parallel programmer that not supports 89CV51RC but 87C51RC microcontrollers?   On the 89CV51 datasheet is written "the flash may be programmed or erased using the parallel method by using a commercially available EPROM programmer which supports this device"

No, and don't even try. Not even the programming pinout and algorithms change from device to device, but also 87 indicates, that it's an EPROM based mcu rather than FLASH, so it most probably would fry the modern chip with applying +12V onto it.

2) If the answer is YES then ...I have the programmer but not the TQFP44 adapter! Needham is passed away and I never found informations to wiring an adapter from TQFP44 to DIP40!

If you would have a modern programmer enough to support this particular chip, the adapter would be most probably just straight, connecting the matching pins between the DIP40 and TQFP44 versions as per datasheet.

Now you either find somebody with such a programmer/adapter, or (not likely I guess) buy such programmer/adapter, or explore the possiblity to migrate to a similar chip (most probably the Atmel variants of the 'RD2).

In the latter case, while it's true that Philips/NXP simply dropped hard the '51 users, you should move the discussion to a more neutral grounds, e.g. to the 8052.com forum.

JW

[Andy Ayre]

In the latter case, while it's true that Philips/NXP simply dropped hard the '51 users, you should move the discussion to a more neutral grounds, e.g. to the 8052.com forum.

Eh? NXP still has 80C31s in production!

Andy

[Jan Waclawek]

OK so... discontinued without viable replacement the complete modern '51 derivatives line...

JW

[Andy Ayre]

The LPC900 family is in full production and that is modern.

But the 89C/V/CV/51Rx2 family has been discontinued.

Andy

[Jan Waclawek]

But the 89C/V/CV/51Rx2 family has been discontinued.

The 'CV51Rx family had been conceived as a replacement for the 'C51Rx, isn't it. After years of complaints from the users who were left with empty hands. And it's gone now without replacement. Similarly with the 'C688.

The LPC900 family is in full production and that is modern.

The vast majority of it is gone already. The 5V LPC97x/98x line lasted how long, three years or four? There are 23 LPC9xx in this years' discontinuation list, most of them without replacement; the active parts' list is 27 items long (if I counted them right), including the package variants. I am willing to risk a bet that they all will be gone until the end of next year. And NXP didn't care to design at least a pin-compatible ARM line, once they push them hard now.

I understand the reasons why is it so and I don't complain, just state the facts. Isn't it fair to point out to the frustrated users you see also here that they may be able to find pin-compatible '51s in other compaines' offerings, even if they have slightly different funcionality?

Jan

[Andy Ayre]

With Cortex-M0 devices that are smaller, low power, better debugging options, better interrupt controllers and around the same prices in quantity as 8051s I'm not too surprised on the general direction the market is taking.

There is nothing stopping people using a quick search on Google to find an alternative device to the one they are using. Choosing an alternative requires looking at lots of factors, not just the pinout IMO.

Andy