I have experience using the DEMOQG board and I had use it to program my final application boards by using the 6 pin BDM on-board connector. Never had a problem with the QG family and BDM.
I have a new design in a board using MC9S08QE128 , the 80 pin version. My first time with this chip. When I received and assembled the first prototype board, I really never expected to have bad results trying to program the chip, but it happened.
The P&E micro DEMOQE board comes with a MC9S08QE128 chip mounted in a piggyback socket board. The chip is the 64 pin version, and not the 80 pin version that I am actually using in my prototype. I think that it should work the same
My prototype board has a 5 pin connector that directly brings just the two lines BKGD and RESET from pins 80 and 79 of the QE128 chip. There are no on board pull-up resistors or any other component connected to these two pins. So there is no interference possible because of sharing the pins with the rest of the circuit. The other connector pins are for external VCC and GND, so the programming board provides the energy during programming.
A jumper allows the user to select if the 3.00 V power for the MCU chip is taken from the application board local voltage regulator, or is taken from the mentioned external programmer connector. The only thing the external programming power supply "sees" on my board, is the QE128 power pins and two decoupling capacitors, one 100nF in parallel with 10 uF electrolytic, close to the QE128 chip. All of the power pins of the chips are used, VCC, VCCAD , VSS, VSSAD, VREFHI, VREFLO.
Using CodeWarrior 6.2 , the DEMOQE perfectly programs the piggyback chip that is inserted in the demo board and that comes provided in the box. If instead, I unplug the 64 pin chip from the board, and use the BDM extension cable to my programming connector, the DEMOQE board starts programming normally, recognizes the board via USB, but is unable to program my 80 pin chip on my final application board.
To my knowledge, there are no shorts, or missing connections. I checked this with a co-worker. The pins 63 and 64 on the DEMOQE board are connected to the 79 and 80 pins on my board, so I am using the same signals that he 64 pin version uses, exept that there is a less than one foot long flat ribbon cable between boards. The 3.6 V from the DEMOQE board can be measured correctly in all VCC connected pins of my 80 pin chip.
I thought a failed chip, so I took a second prototype board and installed another fresh 80 pin QE128 on it. Just the chip, the programming connector and the voltage source selection jumper. The rest of the board is not populated at all. Not a single component. The flat ribbon cable, connectors, etc. have been tested with a multimeter for pinout and also to verify that the pins on the DEMOQE board are connected to the corresponding pins on the application board. Same problem.
Finally, it sounds to me like that for some reason the part is not entering background mode.
Do you have any ideas or similar experiences ? What I am doing wrong ?
Thank you !
BooleanBob
Dear friends:
Based upon the mentioned previous post, now I can program my two application boards with QE128 80 pin version using the CW 6.2 IDE. As I said before. I could make it with the older 6.0 version, but not with the 6.2
This was a quick and dirty procedure that I learned from this post, first downloading the following files from this location:
http://freescale.teknoplex.com/descargas/P&E_DLLs.zip
Made a backup of the existing DLL's found in:
Program Files\Freescale\CodeWarrior for Microcontrollers V6.2\Prog\P&e
... to a temporary folder and then overwriting the new DLL's over the old ones.
ICD08z_dll_v156.dll
ICDrs08_dll_v112.dll
prog08z_dll_v156.dll
progrs08_dll_v112.dll
I could then program my 80 pin device, by using exactly the same hardware without any changes, including the cable.
This worked for me but the procedure is dirty, because I don't have time to find out if it has some serious documents behind. Maybe changing these DLL's could cause some other side effect.
Peg, It seems to me that that they are perfectly reading the kind of chip in the target, if not, how could we explain this fix ?
So maybe someone from P&E and / or CW could kindly help us know.
Kind regards
BooleanBob
Based upon the mentioned previous post, now I can program my two application boards with QE128 80 pin version using the CW 6.2 IDE. As I said before. I could make it with the older 6.0 version, but not with the 6.2
This was a quick and dirty procedure that I learned from this post, first downloading the following files from this location:
http://freescale.teknoplex.com/descargas/P&E_DLLs.zip
Made a backup of the existing DLL's found in:
Program Files\Freescale\CodeWarrior for Microcontrollers V6.2\Prog\P&e
... to a temporary folder and then overwriting the new DLL's over the old ones.
ICD08z_dll_v156.dll
ICDrs08_dll_v112.dll
prog08z_dll_v156.dll
progrs08_dll_v112.dll
I could then program my 80 pin device, by using exactly the same hardware without any changes, including the cable.
This worked for me but the procedure is dirty, because I don't have time to find out if it has some serious documents behind. Maybe changing these DLL's could cause some other side effect.
Peg, It seems to me that that they are perfectly reading the kind of chip in the target, if not, how could we explain this fix ?
So maybe someone from P&E and / or CW could kindly help us know.
Kind regards
BooleanBob
Hi there ! Well, I have to give an answer to two friends.
1. peg
First of all, thanks for the information and the good intentions. Of course I knew about the ID register. Please peg try to think not so honestly as you often do (and as most of us do) just for a minute (and I know that this could be difficult). The fact that there is a legal (documented) way to know what chip is outside there, doesn't mean that the chips could have more built in resources that ( as I said before ) are undocumented and for "reserved for factory use".
Tell me why it is impossible to have a special command(s) to know which of the chips is "outside there" ? Of course there are just two signals envolved. Enough to dialog with anything and gather the required information. Fixing the IDE software by changing the DLL's makes the tool accept to program the chip, by bypassing this limitation. Is there another possible explanation ? I bet that if I could have plugged the 80 pin chip in the internal on-board piggyback socket, I would have failed for sure. No doubt. They are definitely not measuring the impedance or stray capacitance of the cables
2. nimblemachines
Thank you for your valuable return. I agree with most ( and not all ) of your terms and I feel that you have understood my point, that goes further the technical problem. I also agree that this is ethically and commercially serious and delicate. As I told you before, I have too many years of full dedication and loyalty to the brand. But I must say that this loyalty came from both sides.
Motorola ( now Freescale ) always gave us this fantastic feeling of being protected, because of excellency in the engineering, power in commercial market penetration and most of all, the best technical information ever, honest behaviour to recognize an errata sheet or a world alert where no other competitor could, even when being in trouble with failed parts.
With this alliances with Metrowerks, P&E, etc. and this kind of behaviour, many guys like me are being seriously wounded. I don't feel that "Daddy's arms" feeling anymore
If some of you guys have used an Exorciser in the 70's and have learned so much from its almost flawless documentation as my generation did, you will possibly agree with me that P&E has been untidy from the very first minute, the same as CW. I would never had released so poor pieces of evaluation software even if for free, in the name of Motorola or Freescale. Useless funny "Bill Gates style" help windows and error messages, non working debuggers, windows software management that seemed to be written by hobbysts, etc. etc. etc.
CodeWarrior is not safe from some criticism too. The debuggers start working on version 5. Versions 2, 3 and 3.1 are inexistent, not to count what it taked to reliably program a part using the P&E MON08 programming interface. I used the IDE to write software and the original external stand alone P&E micro programmer to program the parts, such as JK1's, JK3's and the like, because of the unreliable PC and Windows dependent communication timing , etc.
I don't really want to offend anybody, this is not my intention here, never had. But many of us know that this is true. Hours and hours of frustration without serious support. Is Motorola / Freescale really seriously auditing and quality controlling these providers to match their traditional style and quality level or not ?
So, maybe the big numbers are winning and the small, passionate, sometimes smart engineering is of no importance these days as it used to be. Things change. This is how it really feels from this side. Some modern, talented sales executives from these companies could probably explain in a couple of Powerpoint slides, with some ascending curves, that all I am talking here is nonsense. I hope that Freescale will soon react and fix this sad panorama.
Finally, thank you for blogging me. I know that almost everything in the internet is for free and available to almost anybody. I want you to say that I authorize you to export my words to your blog, maybe a little late, I'm sorry
I think that this forum should be enough for family conversation. Although serious this time, I still expect Luke Skywalker to get up and beat Darth Vader. I suggest to wait for professional responses.
My best wishes to you all and thanks for being patient.
BooleanBob
1. peg
First of all, thanks for the information and the good intentions. Of course I knew about the ID register. Please peg try to think not so honestly as you often do (and as most of us do) just for a minute (and I know that this could be difficult). The fact that there is a legal (documented) way to know what chip is outside there, doesn't mean that the chips could have more built in resources that ( as I said before ) are undocumented and for "reserved for factory use".
Tell me why it is impossible to have a special command(s) to know which of the chips is "outside there" ? Of course there are just two signals envolved. Enough to dialog with anything and gather the required information. Fixing the IDE software by changing the DLL's makes the tool accept to program the chip, by bypassing this limitation. Is there another possible explanation ? I bet that if I could have plugged the 80 pin chip in the internal on-board piggyback socket, I would have failed for sure. No doubt. They are definitely not measuring the impedance or stray capacitance of the cables
2. nimblemachines
Thank you for your valuable return. I agree with most ( and not all ) of your terms and I feel that you have understood my point, that goes further the technical problem. I also agree that this is ethically and commercially serious and delicate. As I told you before, I have too many years of full dedication and loyalty to the brand. But I must say that this loyalty came from both sides.
Motorola ( now Freescale ) always gave us this fantastic feeling of being protected, because of excellency in the engineering, power in commercial market penetration and most of all, the best technical information ever, honest behaviour to recognize an errata sheet or a world alert where no other competitor could, even when being in trouble with failed parts.
With this alliances with Metrowerks, P&E, etc. and this kind of behaviour, many guys like me are being seriously wounded. I don't feel that "Daddy's arms" feeling anymore
If some of you guys have used an Exorciser in the 70's and have learned so much from its almost flawless documentation as my generation did, you will possibly agree with me that P&E has been untidy from the very first minute, the same as CW. I would never had released so poor pieces of evaluation software even if for free, in the name of Motorola or Freescale. Useless funny "Bill Gates style" help windows and error messages, non working debuggers, windows software management that seemed to be written by hobbysts, etc. etc. etc.
CodeWarrior is not safe from some criticism too. The debuggers start working on version 5. Versions 2, 3 and 3.1 are inexistent, not to count what it taked to reliably program a part using the P&E MON08 programming interface. I used the IDE to write software and the original external stand alone P&E micro programmer to program the parts, such as JK1's, JK3's and the like, because of the unreliable PC and Windows dependent communication timing , etc.
I don't really want to offend anybody, this is not my intention here, never had. But many of us know that this is true. Hours and hours of frustration without serious support. Is Motorola / Freescale really seriously auditing and quality controlling these providers to match their traditional style and quality level or not ?
So, maybe the big numbers are winning and the small, passionate, sometimes smart engineering is of no importance these days as it used to be. Things change. This is how it really feels from this side. Some modern, talented sales executives from these companies could probably explain in a couple of Powerpoint slides, with some ascending curves, that all I am talking here is nonsense. I hope that Freescale will soon react and fix this sad panorama.
Finally, thank you for blogging me. I know that almost everything in the internet is for free and available to almost anybody. I want you to say that I authorize you to export my words to your blog, maybe a little late, I'm sorry
I think that this forum should be enough for family conversation. Although serious this time, I still expect Luke Skywalker to get up and beat Darth Vader. I suggest to wait for professional responses.My best wishes to you all and thanks for being patient.
BooleanBob
Thank you Tom. I appreciate your opinions and suggestions.
In this case, I think that is goes a little further than just a regular claim by using a Freescale service request.
I use this service very frequently and sometimes I get results ... sometimes not. Nobody is perfect.
This case is related to the commercial "bonafide" that the companies are able to offer when they trade their products.
Offering a BDM port in an evaluation kit should work for all (almost) the line of products IMHO. If not, do not include it in the offer. There is no previous warning about this and this can be the reason of my interest in buying the product. But worse than that, is that the BDM port is able to program just some of the chips of the same part number but with more or less pin count. This is really sad. 
BTW, let me point you out that I have already purchased full fledged equipment to program almost the complete line of products, of different brands. This is not a problem of spending or not the money. It is a problem of changing the minds of the guys that program the way how honestly a product is going to be offered to the public.
Kind regards and thank you for your valuable time.
Dear Tom, I also thank you very much for your help.
Please remember that I have made a living from Motorola / Freescale, and I consider this a family discussion. All my words come more from affection than from an economic view. More internal than open to the outer world. People like me with 35+ years of using Motorola chips from the M6800 on ( I still keep chips and the Kit 1 & Kit 2 manuals ) , wearing the "M" Tshirt for years, may have the privilege of giving some opinion. I've been teaching and I still do technical training every day based upon Freescale chips. I can also hear the voices of other people, most of them newbies, engineers and technicians, that find this issues tough.
The best for you and greetings from Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Thank you very much TurboBob and Peg.
I though about some commercial trick immediately.
As soon as TurboBob said that many of us have been experienced this same problem, I searched for previous posts and found Peg's and a carloscuev post in which he indicated to change DLL's. , etc.
http://forums.freescale.com/
Dear friends: please excuse my ignorance but IMHO, the BDM chip dialogs both with CW and also with the target, and we know that it is easy to know what kind of chip is this. It may even exist some "undocumented" command to do so. But I don't really want to dig in doubtful fantasies. I can assure that my only different thing is the chip itself, and not just the extension of two signal cables
I really hope that I am wrong and that this could be just an untidy version flaw or something alike and that the guys at Metrowerks, P&E and probably others will manage to fix soon, pleasing their customers, making a demonstration of the usual United States bonafide basis on commercial issues, that I know since I was a child.
Now: personally (and knowing that this may sound, and in fact may be insignificant) if I find that this has been a trick to get me caught and force me to buy a superior tool, when my first one was bought upon my bonafide basis, that it had a BDM port to program just the same chip family - QE128 in my case - I will try from now on to avoid buying "official" tools and probably to switch with pain to other processor provider.
The reason is that I am 54 and I started using a MC6800 when I has 19. I had already honoured the brand and held its banner for a long time. I had been and still I am a good customer. If this issue is true, who is paying for my lost time to find out the reason for this problem ? It would have been much easier to write a line warning the customer that he will be unable to program just an 80 pin chip instead of the 64 pin version that comes in the box. And of course I should have bought the expensive tool from the very start. It is good manners what I am talking about. Please no offense.
It would be really nice if somebody at P&E and/or CW could explain here what the problem really is and how to solve it. Today is my third day with my board resting over my desk to see if I can program the chip. Is this the method to sell POD's ? I hope not.
Kind regards for you all
BooleanBob
I though about some commercial trick immediately.
As soon as TurboBob said that many of us have been experienced this same problem, I searched for previous posts and found Peg's and a carloscuev post in which he indicated to change DLL's. , etc.
http://forums.freescale.com/
Dear friends: please excuse my ignorance but IMHO, the BDM chip dialogs both with CW and also with the target, and we know that it is easy to know what kind of chip is this. It may even exist some "undocumented" command to do so. But I don't really want to dig in doubtful fantasies. I can assure that my only different thing is the chip itself, and not just the extension of two signal cables
I really hope that I am wrong and that this could be just an untidy version flaw or something alike and that the guys at Metrowerks, P&E and probably others will manage to fix soon, pleasing their customers, making a demonstration of the usual United States bonafide basis on commercial issues, that I know since I was a child.
Now: personally (and knowing that this may sound, and in fact may be insignificant) if I find that this has been a trick to get me caught and force me to buy a superior tool, when my first one was bought upon my bonafide basis, that it had a BDM port to program just the same chip family - QE128 in my case - I will try from now on to avoid buying "official" tools and probably to switch with pain to other processor provider.
The reason is that I am 54 and I started using a MC6800 when I has 19. I had already honoured the brand and held its banner for a long time. I had been and still I am a good customer. If this issue is true, who is paying for my lost time to find out the reason for this problem ? It would have been much easier to write a line warning the customer that he will be unable to program just an 80 pin chip instead of the 64 pin version that comes in the box. And of course I should have bought the expensive tool from the very start. It is good manners what I am talking about. Please no offense.
It would be really nice if somebody at P&E and/or CW could explain here what the problem really is and how to solve it. Today is my third day with my board resting over my desk to see if I can program the chip. Is this the method to sell POD's ? I hope not.
Kind regards for you all
BooleanBob
